CONSERVATION PLAN FOR RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis)

IN COLORADO

August 23, 2004 Colorado Division of Wildlife Aquatic Wildlife Section Denver, CO

CONSERVATION PLAN FOR RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis)

IN COLORADO

Prepared by:

John Alves Doug Krieger Tom Nesler

Colorado Division of Wildlife 6060 Broadway Denver, CO 80216

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 1

Natural History ...... 1

Taxonomic and Genetic Evaluation ...... 6

Genetic Management ...... 7

Management Classifications ...... 9

Population Viability and Stability ...... 11

Management of Rio Grande Cutthroat With Regard To Threats . . . 13

Definitions ...... 19

RGCT Conservation Strategy ...... 23

RGCT Five Year Implementation Schedule ...... 28

Literature Cited ...... 32

Appendix I. Information About Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Populations . . 36

Appendix II. Status of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Populations . . . 55

Appendix III. Distribution Maps ...... 60

RGCT Conservation Plan Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Population Types . . . . 57

Figure 2. Distribution of Core Populations ...... 58

Figure 3. Distribution of Conservation Populations . . . . 58

Figure 4. Distribution of Recreation Populations . . . . . 59

Figure 5. Status of Core and Conservation Populations . . . . 59

Map 1:3. Core and Conservation Population Types . . . . 61

Map 2:3. Recreation Population Type ...... 64

Map 3:3. Core and Conservation Waters by Status Type . . . . 67

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout by GMU . . . 5

Table 2. Summary Report: RGCT Genetic Analysis . . . .. 40

Table 3. Summary Report: RGCT Core and Conservation Populations . .. 45

Table 4. Summary Report: RGCT Recreation Populations . . . . 48

Table 5. Summary Report: RGCT Status of RGCT Populations . . . 51

Table 6. Summary of RGCT Management Classifications . . . . 56

Table 7. Status Summary for Core Conservation and Conservation Populations . 57

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This conservation plan was developed by personnel of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and was distributed for internal and external review prior to approval. The CDOW wishes to acknowledge and thank those that contributed to its completion.

Bruce May – US Forest Service – Bozeman, MT Marilyn Myers – US Fish & Wildlife Service – Albuquerque, NM David Nickum – Colorado Trout Unlimited – Boulder, CO Barry Wiley – US Forest Service – Monte Vista, CO Peter Wilkinson – New Mexico Department of Game and Fish – Santa Fe, NM

RGCT Conservation Plan Page iii

INTRODUCTION

Rio Grande cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis, is the only native salmonid of the Rio Grande basin in Colorado. It is one of four subspecies of cutthroat trout that are native to Colorado’s coldwater streams and lakes. The other three are Colorado River cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus), greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias), and now extinct yellowfin cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki macdonaldi). Only in southern Colorado and New Mexico can anglers pursue this beautiful sport fish in its native waters. Currently, Rio Grande cutthroat trout occupies significantly less of its historic native range. Many of the populations are restricted to small headwater streams, and some are at risk of extirpation. The Rio Grande cutthroat trout subspecies was not included in the original list of animal and plant species considered warranting protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 despite historic declines. In 1973, Colorado independently listed the Rio Grande cutthroat trout as a state threatened species. Recovery goals were established, and after an 11-year period of conservation activities, the subspecies was delisted in 1984 (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1992). Rio Grande cutthroat trout is presently designated a species of special concern in Colorado. Policy of the State of Colorado is that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors (Colorado Division of Wildlife Statutes 33-1-101). This document was developed to provide a framework for the long-term conservation of Rio Grande cutthroat trout in Colorado, and represents an extension of previous management plans (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1982, 1992, 1996, 1999). The document will be used to develop management strategies, budgetary needs, and necessary regulations, as well as facilitate cooperative, interagency management of Rio Grande cutthroat trout to conserve and expand new populations. The conservation plan will be reviewed and updated on a 5 year cycle following final approval.

NATURAL HISTORY

Taxonomy

The cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki, is a prime example of a polytypic species. Cutthroat trout are found in both coastal and inland streams from Alaska to New Mexico, and

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 1

within this range the species has evolved into numerous subspecies or geographic races. Many subspecies undoubtedly are polyphyletic, having evolved directly from other subspecies rather than (monophyletically) from a centrally localized stem group. Rio Grande cutthroat trout are believed to have arisen from Colorado River cutthroat trout that entered the previously unoccupied Rio Grande drainage basin during the last glacial period (70,000 years ago) (Behnke 1992). Rio Grande cutthroat trout was first described from “Utah” [Ute] Creek, a tributary of the Rio Grande near Fort Garland, Colorado (Girard 1857). Rio Grande cutthroat trout have red to orange slashes in the gular folds of the lower jaw. They develop colors similar to those of greenback and Colorado River cutthroat trout, but somewhat less intensely than the other two subspecies. Rio Grande cutthroat trout have olive colored backs, light rose to red-orange on the sides to pink or yellowish-orange bellies. Colors are more intense on breeding adults, especially males. Taxonomic differences among cutthroat trout subspecies are based on variation in coloration, spotting pattern, and meristic characters including number of scales in the lateral series, number of gill rakers, number of pyloric caeca, and presence and number of basibranchial teeth. Rio Grande cutthroat trout differ from greenback and Colorado River cutthroat trout by having fewer scales in the lateral series and by the irregular shape of the spots on the caudal peduncle (Behnke 1992). Adult Rio Grande cutthroat trout are distinguished by large, club-shaped spots that are concentrated posterior to the dorsal fin on the caudal peduncle. Basibranchial teeth are weakly developed or absent in Rio Grande cutthroat trout. According to Behnke (1992, 2002), two forms of Rio Grande cutthroat trout exist based on meristic and morphological characteristics. One form associated with the Rio Grande proper of Colorado and New Mexico, and the other with the Upper Pecos River in New Mexico. Behnke determined that the Pecos form had larger spots, which are more typical of greenback cutthroat trout, and more scales in the lateral series.

Life History

Trout require four kinds of habitat during the various stages of their life history: spawning habitat, nursery or rearing habitat, adult habitat, and over-wintering habitat. Deficiencies in any one of the four will limit populations (Behnke 1992). Specific information on the habitat requirements for spawning, rearing, cover and feeding for Rio Grande cutthroat trout are not available (Rinne 1995). However, Rio Grande cutthroat trout habitat preference is probably consistent with typical cutthroat trout habitat. Cutthroat trout, in general, prefer clear, cold

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 2

streams and lakes. Population densities are regulated mostly by stream size and morphology, over-wintering habitat, stream productivity, and summer cover for predator avoidance (Sublette et. al 1990). Optimal cutthroat trout stream habitat is characterized by clear, cold water, a silt free rocky substrate in riffle-run areas; an approximately 1:1 pool-riffle ratio with areas of slow, deep water; well vegetated stream banks; abundant instream cover; and relatively stable water flow and temperature regimes (Raleigh and Duff 1981). Optimal lacustrine habitat is characterized by clear, cold, deep lakes that are typically oligotrophic, but may vary in size and chemical quality, particularly in reservoir habitats. Cutthroat trout are stream spawners and require tributary streams with gravel substrate in riffle areas for reproduction to occur (Hickman and Raleigh 1982). Rio Grande cutthroat trout feed on aquatic invertebrates inhabiting riffle areas of streams, and terrestrial insects that fall into the water (Sublette et. al. 1990). Quality insect production requires rubble-dominated substrate in riffles, oxygenated water and less than 10 percent fines in those riffles. Growth depends primarily on food availability, size of prey, competition, water temperatures, and the length of growing seasons (Behnke and Zarn 1976). Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations inhabiting small streams typically range in size from 2 inches at age 1 to 10 inches at age 7. However, cutthroat trout inhabiting productive lakes attain greater size. Rio Grande cutthroat trout brood fish at Haypress Lake grow to 20 inches and weigh 3.3 pounds (Alves 2002). Spawning occurs in streams from March through July depending on water temperature (usually beginning at 42-48°F), runoff, elevation and latitude (Behnke and Zarn 1976). In Colorado, most spawning occurs from May through July, typically on the descending limb of spring snowmelt when water temperatures near 50 °F. Females mature at three years of age while males become sexually mature at age two. In cooler headwater streams, trout mature at a smaller size than they do at lower elevation habitats (Behnke and Zarn 1976). Typically 200- 4500 eggs are produced, depending on the size of the female. Eggs are laid in a gravel nest, or redd, built by the female in flowing water where high dissolved oxygen levels exist, a requirement of developing embryos (Sublette et. al. 1990). Hatching time is dependent upon water temperature. For example, at the Colorado Division of Wildlife Fish Research Hatchery, Rio Grande cutthroat trout hatch in 26 days at 53°F (Phil Schler pers. comm. Colorado Division of Wildlife). Rio Grande cutthroat trout evolved in Colorado and New Mexico as a member of a native fish assemblage that included longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), flathead chub

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 3

(Platygobio gracilis), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Rio Grande chub (Gila pandora) and Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius) (Hatch et.al. 1998, Rinne 1995, Sublette et. al. 1990).

Historic Range of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout

The entire historic range of Rio Grande cutthroat trout cannot be known with certainty, due to the paucity of early distribution data. Presumably the subspecies occupied colder reaches of streams in the Rio Grande drainage of Colorado and New Mexico and Pecos River drainage of New Mexico (Stumpff and Cooper 1996). The occurrence of Rio Grande cutthroat trout in the Canadian River drainage of Colorado and New Mexico cannot be verified by historic museum specimens or from written accounts of early explorers (Behnke 1992). Rio Grande cutthroat trout habitat in Colorado included many waters presently capable of supporting trout in the Rio Grande drainage above 7,200-feet elevation. Since some coldwater habitats were likely fishless as well, it would be erroneous to include all coldwater streams and lakes as historic habitat. Hydrologic modifications, subsequent water temperature changes (> 70°F), and increased deposition of sediment probably determined the lower terminus of Rio Grande cutthroat trout distribution in streams of the San Luis Valley. Cutthroat trout are usually not found in waters that exceed 70°F for extended periods. Natural barriers such as waterfalls that prevent fish movement probably defined the upstream limit of cutthroat trout distribution. Also water temperatures of headwater streams may be too cold to provide the temperatures needed to develop embryos. Water temperatures below a daily maximum of 39°F to 46°F can delay spawning and prolong egg incubation, lowering embryo survival and increasing time to hatching (Rinne 1980, Hubert et. al. 1994). Subspecies of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) have been reduced to a small portion of their historical range, primarily due to habitat degradation and interactions with nonnative salmonids (Behnke 1992, Young 1995). Without doubt, the distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout has declined historically. The most significant period of decline, however, may have been associated with the late 1800s and early 1900s, when human population growth and exploitation of natural resources in the western states surpassed concerns for conservation of native fauna. Habitat degradation from anthropogenic activities including livestock grazing, logging, mining, irrigation, dewatering of streams and siltation contributed to a decline in distribution. Probably the greatest threat to Rio Grande cutthroat trout was the introduction of nonnative salmonids, principally rainbow trout, brook trout, brown trout and nonnative cutthroat

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 4

trout (Behnke 1992, Sublette et al. 1990). Rainbow trout and nonnative cutthroat trout are spring spawners and readily hybridize with Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Brook and brown trout compete with Rio Grande cutthroat trout for food and space (Rinne 1995).

Current Distribution

The range of the Rio Grande cutthroat (within Colorado) has been divided by sub-basins into eight geographic management units (GMUs) to bring a greater resolution to descriptions of population and habitat distribution and related maintenance and restoration work. These GMUs reflect the hydrologic divisions of the Rio Grande basin by river drainage. They do not necessarily reflect important differences in genetic variability in the subspecies based on geography or adaptation to specific environments. As knowledge of the genetic variability within Rio Grande cutthroat trout increases, planning and management should become increasingly sensitive to conservation differences that comprise the genome of the subspecies. Today, Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations exist in 162 waters of eight geographic management units in Colorado (Table 1) (Appendix II). These populations exist on public and private land.

Table 1. Distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations by GMU.

RGCT Populations GMU Public Private Total Percent Alamosa-Trinchera 17 26 43 26 Rio Grande Headwaters 34 1 35 22 San Luis Creek 27 0 27 17 Conejos River 24 0 25 15 Saguache Creek 16 3 19 12 Rio Chama 3 4 7 4 Canadian River Headwaters 0 3 3 2 Upper Rio Grande 0 3 3 2

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 5

TAXONOMIC AND GENETIC EVALUATION

The first method used for taxonomic evaluation of Rio Grande cutthroat trout was based on morphological and meristic characteristics. These characteristics were based predominately on phenotypic expressions such as number of scales along or above the lateral line, number of pyloric caeca, number of basiobranchial teeth, number of gill rakers on the first gill arch, spotting pattern, coloration, size and shape of parr marks, number of pelvic fin rays and the number of vertebrae (Behnke, 1992). Meristics were used to classify cutthroat trout from 43 populations in the Rio Grande basin (CDOW Blue Book 1979-1986) (Appendix I, Table 2). Populations analyzed by this technique were rated as “pure” (A), if all diagnostic criteria were within an expected range for that particular subspecies. A population was considered “essentially pure” (A-) if one or more of the diagnostic criteria was slightly outside the expected range. A rating of “good” (B) was used to describe a population where introgression with other subspecies of cutthroat or rainbow trout was detected. Utilizing this technique, it was difficult, in some cases to assess whether diagnostic criteria that fell outside the expected norm, were due to natural population variations or hybridization. Another drawback of this technique was that it required the sacrifice of specimens. Horizontal starch gel electrophoretic analysis of allozymes was used to determine genetic characteristics of Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations based on different protein coding loci. These loci specifically coded for proteins that were present in muscle, liver and eye tissues. At some loci, Rio Grande cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout rarely share alleles in common. Loci where fixed genetic differences exist are considered diagnostic, and theoretically can be used to determine whether a population is pure or hybridized. Currently, there are 9 diagnostic loci that are used to distinguish between Rio Grande cutthroat trout and rainbow trout (Leary, 2001). Also there are currently four diagnostic loci used to distinguish between Rio Grande cutthroat trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Leary 2001). This procedure can also be used to estimate genetic variation within populations. Electrophoresis requires sacrificing specimens and can differentiate between Colorado River Cutthroat and Rio Grande Cutthroat trout. The Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab at the University of Montana used electrophoresis to evaluate 21 cutthroat trout populations in the Rio Grande basin (Leary 1988, 2001, 2002, 2003, Leary et. al. 2000) (Appendix I, Table 2). Currently, DNA is analyzed from two sources, the cell mitochondria and the cell nucleus. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is a maternally inherited DNA genome located within the mitochondria of the cell. Restriction site analysis of mtDNA can be used to evaluate the

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 6

presence and degree of hybridization (or introgression) between the Rio Grande subspecies and other western cutthroat subspecies (Yellowstone, Snake River) as well as rainbow trout. Due to the maternal inheritance of mtDNA, such analyses are more definitive for populations experiencing longer periods of hybridization with a greater exchange of genetic material between individuals. It is less useful for more slowly evolving hybridized populations (where there has been limited generational intercross between RGCT and other non-native trout), or in populations where the invasion of non-native individuals, particularly females, occurred over many years. Analysis of mtDNA was used to determine genetic introgression variation within RGCT populations. Don Proebstel at the World Salmonid Research Institute and Colorado State University used mtDNA technique to analyze hybridization in 15 cutthroat populations (Proebstel et.al.1996, Proebstel 1997, Proebstel 1998, Proebstel 1999) (See Appendix I, Table 2). The presence and degree of hybridization or introgression between RGCT and other non-native salmonids can also be evaluated using nuclear DNA (nDNA). Such analysis has utilized a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique and paired interspersed nuclear DNA elements (PINEs). The PINEs technique can be used to amplify specific loci that are diagnostic for species and subspecies comparisons. Employing a nuclear DNA technique has the advantages of not requiring a lethal sample, and is not solely dependent on maternal inheritance as both male and female contribute to nuclear DNA. The Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab at the University of Montana used the PINEs technique to analyze cutthroat trout specimens from 20 populations in the Rio Grande basin for genetic introgression with non- native salmonids (Leary report pending).

GENETIC MANAGEMENT

Results of genetic analysis will be used to guide management decisions for the conservation of Rio Grande cutthroat trout, and where possible, the species will be managed on the basis of each geographic unit. Genetic evaluation has been conducted, and will continue to be conducted, in order to make genetic distinctions between populations from the various geographical units. Based on results and interpretation of genetic information compiled thus far, unique haplotype fingerprints can not be recognized for the populations examined. In addition, there are an inadequate number of populations from each of the geographic units to serve as appropriate candidates for procurement of hatchery stock. Faced with the current limitations, we have produced composite broodstocks (captive and wild) composed of individuals and their

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 7

genetic components from several populations across geographical units. Essentially these broodstocks were constructed to mimic a mainstem Rio Grande population. This assumes that historic genetic exchange occurred as a large, functioning metapopulation, and that there were no discernable ecologically-specific limitations or uniqueness. The composite broodstocks have been utilized for establishment of new populations within various geographical units. However, the integrity of existing historic genetically-pure populations will be maintained, as progeny from the developed broodstocks will not be stocked “over” those individual populations. The Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation program in Colorado will strive to complete sufficient and adequate genetic testing which will allow the identification of unique and distinct characteristics for each geographical unit. If these efforts are successful, then the intent would be to establish broodstocks for those unique units. Progeny from those could then be utilized to establish new populations within those units. Until, or if, such unit-specific broodstocks can be developed, establishment of new populations using a “nearest neighbor” strategy remains an option. The selection of the nearest neighbor would depend upon identification of an appropriate population that exhibited similar ecological characteristics, provided adequate numbers of individuals to use for either spawning or transfer, and showed no or limited evidence of inbreeding. Genetic purity (or conversely - the degree of genetic introgression) is used to assign each RGCT population into the most appropriate management classification (explained further in the following section). The management classifications are linked to the genetic management. For example, a lake or stream supports a Rio Grande cutthroat trout core conservation and conservation population if it is reproducing and recruiting as a geographically distinct group. These populations would not receive genetic material from other populations unless there is evidence of inbreeding depression. Unique population attributes, if present, would be influential in selecting a donor source to remedy inbreeding depression and maintain these attributes. Slightly hybridized populations would not be used to develop broodstock for new restoration populations, but may be considered as sources for introductions or reintroductions when the objective is to duplicate unique ecological, genetic or behavioral attributes. Naturally reproducing conservation populations within a larger drainage equate to subpopulations within a metapopulation.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 8

MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT POPULATIONS

Management of cutthroat trout must include consideration of the genetic conditions and characteristics that contribute to the maintenance of the attributes that make cutthroat trout a unique fish and a valued component of the fish community (UDWR 2000). There are three components associated with conservation of cutthroat trout, core conservation populations, conservation populations and recreation populations. A core population is a conservation population that is >99% pure, phenotypically true, and representative of the historic genome of the native cutthroat trout (Appendix I, Table 3; Appendix III, Map 1:3). Core populations contain cutthroat trout that have not been impacted by genetic alteration linked to human intervention. These populations serve as the primary source of gametes for introductions and re-introductions through transplants, and for broodstock development. These populations should not receive genetic material from other population sources unless there is evidence that inbreeding depression, random genetic drift or other factors have put the population in jeopardy (UDWR 2000). A conservation population is a self-sustaining population of Rio Grande cutthroat trout that is managed to preserve the historical genome and/or unique genetic, ecological, and/or behavioral characteristics within specific populations and within geographic units (Appendix I, Table 3; Appendix III Map 1:3). Populations are further classified by quantifying introgression. A conservation population is at least 90% Rio Grande cutthroat trout (≤10% introgression). These populations retain all of the phenotypic attributes associated with the subspecies. Conservation of introgressed populations will be consistent with the guidance in the position paper (UDWR 2000). The conservation of slightly introgressed populations is meant to conserve as much of the taxon’s genetic character without compromising phenotypic, behavioral, and ecological characteristics of the taxon. This genetic conservation approach is seen as consistent with direction under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) and subsequent Federal policies. The identification of taxonomic levels below “species” as qualifying for protection under the Endangered Species Act (1973 as amended; Section 3.15) including distinct population segments (DPS). In the definition and application of DPS designations (61 FR 4722-4725), the biological and ecological significance of such populations would be considered under Congressional guidance to use of DPS designations sparingly while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity (Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). In a proposed rule regarding treatment of introgression or hybridization in recovery of

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 9

listed species, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suggested that progeny of intercross mating that retained the phenotypic, behavioral and ecological traits that characterize the listed species also be included in protections under ESA (61 FR 4710-4713). This draft rule has never been formally adopted, but as quoted in the background information, “the issue of hybrids is more properly a biological issue than a legal one.” It is within this biological context that slightly- introgressed populations are included as important components of Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation. The goal is to preserve as much Rio Grande cutthroat trout genetic diversity as possible; it may be appropriate to accept some hybrid influence in order to preserve a larger amount of Rio Grande cutthroat trout genetic diversity. The USFWS recently remanded a petition to list westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) as threatened based upon their decision to include hybrid populations and populations of unknown genetic characteristics in the taxonomic group considered for listing (USFWS 2003). Recreation populations are established through stocking of genetically pure Rio Grande cutthroat trout from wild or captive brood stocks. Recreation populations inhabit high lakes and streams where restoration is unlikely due to physical, sociological, and political factors. Recreation populations are managed in high lakes through periodic stocking since these waters generally do not provide spawning habitat. The primary management focus of a Rio Grande cutthroat trout recreation population is on the sport fish benefits to the public. These populations will serve the dual purposes of maintaining genetic refugia for pure historic populations and providing sportfish recreation (Appendix I, Table 4; Appendix III, Map 2:3). Supplemental stocking of these genetic refugia populations is an interim management tool while working toward conservation population objectives. Earlier categorizations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations based on genetic purity relied on an A, B, C or D purity rating. During the transition between this previous approach and the one outlined above, populations that were rated B or better will be considered conservation populations, and those that were rated A+, A, and A- will be considered core conservation populations. The overriding intent of this genetic management classification is to preserve, protect and enhance the purity and diversity of the genome of Rio Grande cutthroat trout across its range. The genetic purity of most core conservation populations has been confirmed by accepted and recognized analytical genetic techniques (allozymes and mitochondrial or nuclear DNA), however a few populations have been designated as such based only on meristic and morphological characteristics (in combination with stocking records and lack of phenotypic expression of other non-native salmonids). The intent is to complete diagnostic genetic testing on these latter populations to verify their purity and their valid inclusion as core conservation

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 10

populations. Genetic assessments of core and conservation populations will continue to be updated over time. In this manner, the influence of hybridization and the presence of unique genetic characteristics of the populations can be determined across and within the designated GMUs. It follows that populations that contain varying degrees of hybridization may need to be conserved throughout the range. Past experience with the continuing development of molecular genetic research technologies has demonstrated that interpretations of inland cutthroat trout phylogeny and genetic conservation will also continue to change. New information may compel changes in present genetic conservation strategies, which in turn, may influence the management classification of RGCT populations.

POPULATION VIABILITY AND STABILITY

Viability refers to the probability that a population or a group of subpopulations will persist within some given area over some period of time. The application of viability concepts and risk of extirpation or extinction in inland native cutthroat trout subspecies has been previously reviewed in McIntyre and Rieman 1995 and Young 1995. Viability has been evaluated through modeling using select population parameters to evaluate and quantify risk of extinction over a specific period of time (e.g. 100-year period), and to determine if a population can maintain a minimum threshold of population size over that time given those population characteristics (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). A range of population variables are used in a randomized, iterative process to simulate environmental and demographic stochasticity, resulting in population abundance fluctuations and providing estimates of persistence. From these models, thresholds for population abundance criteria that provide a 95% probability that a population will meet or exceed those thresholds and persist for 100 years have been proposed (Young and Harig 2001, Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000, McIntyre and Rieman 1995). In turn, this abundance criterion has been used to estimate habitat patch size to support that population size (Harig and Fausch 2002, Harig et al. 2000, Harig 2000, Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000). These modeling processes are useful for providing guidance on how to enhance native trout populations and their habitat. However, the results have also been the focus of debate over thresholds for conservation criteria, below which populations are labeled as “nonviable” and a basis for exclusion from recovery or conservation goals. These criteria tend to discount small, isolated populations that have persisted for many years regardless of size or habitat occupied (Young 1995). Viability is viewed as relative and potential for persistence (or

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 11

extirpation) as a range from low to high probability. Under present circumstances, Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations exist in numbers and in a range of habitat conditions that also equates to a range of probability of being more or less likely to persist. Small, isolated populations are at higher risk of extirpation due to limited population size, catastrophic events and potential for genetic isolation than larger, connected populations. However, the remoteness of the isolated populations also infers a lower risk of disease and genetic introgression, than larger metapopulations. As such, these small populations may be targeted for management actions to simulate connectedness in a metapopulation as well as habitat enhancement to support larger populations and greater distribution. Replication and re-founding these populations in suitable habitats will be considered an appropriate conservation strategy for the species. In Colorado, all Rio Grande cutthroat trout core conservation and conservation populations are of value to the conservation objectives of the subspecies, regardless of size or habitat occupied. Similar to conservation or recovery programs for most other inland cutthroat subspecies, Colorado has not adopted standards of population viability necessary for long term persistence (USFWS 1998, CRCT Task Force 2001). In the interim, we use a suite of population parameters to describe the status of our inland cutthroat trout populations. There is no quantitative threshold in our assessments which compels a decision of viable or not for a single population. Stable, self-sustaining populations are defined as those that maintain a minimum biomass of 20 lb/ac through natural reproduction; and contain a minimum of 500 adults (adults defined as fish > 4.7 inches in length). The population should be represented by a minimum of two-year classes within a five-year period established through natural reproduction. Stability is further defined by the presence of a physical, chemical or biological barrier separating the cutthroat population from other salmonids (USFWS 1998). The survey data that may be associated with viability include abundance and biomass estimates, and length frequency distributions as they pertain to evidence of successful reproduction, survival and recruitment resulting in multiple year classes. The number of surveys and time interval bounded by these surveys demonstrates success over time. A population that approximates or exceeds the abundance and biomass criteria (500 adults, 20 lb/ac) and is represented by multiple age groups demonstrates both stability and viability since successful reproduction, recruitment, growth and survival are implied by these parameters. When these parameters are available from two or more surveys and indicate little or no change or an increasing trend, the population is generally regarded as persistent and stable or increasing/expanding. With the data available from additional surveys and/or greater time

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 12

intervals between surveys with little or no change or an increasing trend, these populations would be considered more viable due to persistence and stability or growth in population attributes. Other attributes, including allopatry, occupation of more complex drainage systems, and connection with one or more Rio Grande cutthroat trout subpopulations increase the sense of stability and viability when present. Considering the various population parameters discussed above, Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations are assigned a status. The status categories include “At Risk and Declining”, “At Risk and Stable”, “Secure and Stable”, “Secure and Expanding”, and “Unknown” (Appendix I, Table 5; Appendix II; Appendix III, Map 3:3) (Alves 1998, Stumpff and Cooper 1996). These status rankings are intended to describe the status of Rio Grande cutthroat trout in Colorado, summarize the progress of the conservation plan, and assist managers in establishing priorities for population restoration.

MANAGEMENT OF RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT WITH REGARD TO THREATS

This section of the conservation plan describes threats to population persistence. We chose to use the Endangered Species Act threat categories as a convenient way of addressing important conservation considerations.

A. Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of the species' habitat or range: Introduction of nonnative fishes and habitat alteration are primarily responsible for reduction in Rio Grande cutthroat trout distribution and abundance (Behnke 1992, Rinne 1995, Sublette et al. 1990). Stocking of non-native salmonids was widespread since before 1900, and has been considered a primary threat to inland native cutthroat subspecies. Brook trout are known to replace most subspecies of inland cutthroat trout when in sympatry (Behnke and Zarn 1976). Rainbow trout and other nonnative cutthroat trout subspecies hybridize with Rio Grande cutthroat and produce fertile offspring (Behnke and Zarn 1976, Rinne 1995). Introductions of non-native salmonids into existing populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations in Colorado by State or Federal fish and wildlife agencies ceased with the state listing of the subspecies in 1973, and do not represent an ongoing practice or threat. Private organizations and individuals may, on occasion, illegally stock waters with nonnative salmonids which may potentially hybridize or compete with native cutthroats, but the stocking of private waters is now

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 13

regulated by a stocking permit program supported by policy, administrative directive, and regulation within the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Unauthorized stocking in public waters is illegal and punishable under Colorado state law. In pursuit of coldwater recreational fishery management objectives, the Division will give preference to the use of native cutthroat trout sub- species for management purposes. Stocked fish will not compromise the health of Colorado’s aquatic resources, nor will the use of stocked fish threaten the status of any population of native fishes. Rio Grande cutthroat trout stocking will comply with guidance for genetic criteria, documented need, broodstock development, restoration stocking, and monitoring as approved within the conservation plan. A wide variety of land management practices have been suggested to threaten the continued existence of populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout, including overgrazing, heavy metal pollution, and water depletion and diversion (Behnke and Zarn 1976, Behnke 1992; Sublette et al. 1990, Stumpff and Cooper 1996). Some of these practices have served to isolate upstream populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout and protected them from invasion by non- native salmonids, but they also serve to fragment streams, restricting movement between formerly connected populations and creating small, isolated populations that may be more likely to become extirpated. Based on the requirement of existing forest and range management plans to minimize negative impacts to listed “sensitive species” and the inclusion of native cutthroat trout subspecies as sensitive species, protection of native cutthroat trout populations and their habitat on federal lands seems more certain. The Rio Grande National Forest has developed forest-wide management goals and strategies intended to protect Rio Grande cutthroat trout habitat (USDA Forest Service 1996, 2003). Land use management considerations as part of this plan include; riparian buffer maintenance and protection, sedimentation abatement, mining and logging restrictions, proper placement of recreational trails, minimal impact grazing strategies, quantitative habitat monitoring, and development of instream/riparian habitat restoration projects. Coordination between the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and state wildlife agencies with regard to mutual habitat concerns for state-listed, special concern, and sensitive wildlife species like the Rio Grande cutthroat trout is an ongoing practice. This coordination will be formalized with final approval of the draft conservation agreement for the subspecies. Habitat problems are viewed as site specific and not an overall threat throughout the range. The summarized population data and assessments of individual waters provided here serve to confirm where site-specific habitat problems do exist, not that these individual populations are certainly headed toward extirpation, or that a range-wide threat from habitat mismanagement or degradation is present.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 14

B. Overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes: Overharvest is not considered a threat to this subspecies at this time. Special regulations requiring catch-and-release, very limited harvest, and terminal tackle restrictions have demonstrated effectiveness in maintaining trout populations in the face of a wide range of fishing pressure, and have been applied to native cutthroat waters throughout Colorado. Catch and release regulations with fly and lure only terminal tackle restrictions protect Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations in 22 streams (148.8 stream miles) and three reservoirs (82 acres) (CDOW Regulations, Chapter 1, Article 11, Special Regulation waters). These 25 populations have been judged potentially vulnerable to depletion with angler harvest and therefore protected with special regulations. Not all populations require special regulations. Location of Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations in remote headwater drainages and small streams with difficult access has provided an isolating, protective effect from fishing pressure. The tendency for these populations to be in smaller creeks and composed largely of small-sized fish (< 10 in) has also served to protect these populations from angler harvest. Scientific collection of wildlife is regulated through a permit system (CDOW Regulations, Chapter 13) requiring a formal application stating project objectives, sampling methodologies, sampling sites, and need for collecting. This application is subsequently reviewed by Division managers and biologists responsible for management of the species/sites designated in the application. Approval may be granted or denied; stipulations and restrictions may be attached to an approved permit.

C. Disease or predation: Rio Grande cutthroat trout are susceptible to common salmonid diseases, including whirling disease (WD), which is caused by the myxosporean Myxobolus cerebralis (MC) (Markiw 1992). Native cutthroat trout, including Rio Grande cutthroat trout, exposed to MC in sentinel fish experiments suffered greater mortality from the infection than other non-native salmonid species like brown trout (Nehring 1998). Transmission of diseases to wild cutthroat populations through hatchery-based fish stocking is recognized as a significant potential disease threat. Whirling disease became a specific concern when population-level impacts to wild rainbow trout were identified. In Colorado, Wildlife Commission policy D-9 on MC clearly prohibits stocking of MC positive salmonid fish in protected habitats, which include native cutthroat trout waters and most salmonid habitats as defined by regulation. For stocking of native cutthroat trout into existing or

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 15

restored habitats by the Division of Wildlife, only fish that have tested negative for MC using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocol are eligible for release, and the PCR test must be performed within 60 days of the desired stocking date. By policy and regulation (CDOW Regulations, Chapter 0, #008.H; #009.G), the Division of Wildlife has been directed to eliminate the stocking of WD positive fish in habitats that are capable of supporting self-reproducing salmonid populations, including standing waters above such habitat by 2003. These salmonid habitats and native cutthroat trout habitats are identified in regulation (CDOW Regulations, Chapter 0, Appendices D, E, and F), and include most coldwater stream drainages in the state. Colorado also has regulations for disease-free certification for seven salmonid pathogens for imported fish and a policy requiring use of isolation/quarantine units while propagating native cutthroat trout stocks to decrease risk of transmitting salmonid pathogens. Whirling disease infection was discovered in the Rio Grande between South Fork and Del Norte in1988, and in Beaver Creek and the Conejos River in 1994-1995. Since 1996, 75 fish samples have been collected for disease testing, research and monitoring on over 30 streams and lakes, including several segments of the Rio Grande, South Fork of the Rio Grande, and the Conejos Rivers. Whirling disease positive habitats are present in the Rio Grande from Rio Grande Reservoir to Monte Vista, in the South Fork Rio Grande from Big Meadows Reservoir downstream (including the Beaver Creek drainage), and in the Conejos River from Platoro Reservoir downstream. Trout populations in these stream and reservoirs are composed of rainbow, brook and brown trout. Fish samples collected from seven Rio Grande cutthroat waters since 1997 have all tested negative for whirling disease. It is important to note that these cutthroat trout waters contain Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations that are considered at risk and declining, but the declines are attributed to competition with brook and brown trout. Conversely, whirling disease positive trout stocked by a commercial fish hatchery at an isolated pond near Great Sand Dunes National Monument in April 1988 has not impacted a Rio Grande cutthroat trout population at nearby Medano Creek. Medano Creek was chemically reclaimed in 1988 to remove nonnative trout and was restocked with Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Although Medano Creek has not been tested for WD, the cutthroat trout population has demonstrated successful reproduction and recruitment annually for a decade, and is considered secure and expanding. Competition between cutthroat trout and nonnative salmonids has been documented as a cause for declines in cutthroat trout populations (Griffith 1988, Peterson and Fausch 2002, Young 1995). Competition with and/or predation by introduced salmonid species can also be a contributing factor in the decline of some individual Rio Grande cutthroat populations and

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 16

putting their continued existence at risk. These adverse conditions can be resolved with appropriate chemical reclamation to remove the nonnative trout species’ population and barrier re-construction as needed to isolate the reintroduced native cutthroat population from re- invasion. Due to potential illicit reintroduction on nonnative trout species into cutthroat waters, this threat must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

D. Absence of regulating mechanisms adequate to prevent decline of the species or degradation of its habitat: Rio Grande cutthroat trout is not currently exhibiting a declining trend range-wide, and has been steadily improving in population distribution and abundance since the late 1980s. For example, the 1992 Rio Grande cutthroat trout management plan (CDOW 1992) listed 39 historic populations (i.e. conservation populations) in 184 stream miles, and 45 lake acres whereas the 2002 Rio Grande cutthroat trout status report (CDOW 2002) documented 77 conservation populations in 411 stream miles and 60 lake acres. In Colorado, the Division of Wildlife has placed the highest priority on protection of native cutthroat trout populations. The Division of Wildlife has implemented regulations consistent with its Statewide Fish Management Policy and Whirling Disease Policy. Native cutthroat trout populations are protected by state regulations concerning stocking restrictions, fishing closures, harvest and gear restrictions, stream barriers to fish passage, and disease control. These regulations prohibit the stocking of non-native salmonids in Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations, minimize their exposure to whirling disease infection and other diseases through stocking restrictions and rigorous disease testing of wild and hatchery salmonid populations. These approaches are considered to be effective in reducing the threats of hybridization with other salmonids, overharvest by angling, and disease. There is no evidence of a lack of adequate regulations contributing to a decline in any existing population in Colorado. Threats to depletion of stream flow regimes are reduced through filing for minimum instream flow rights with the Colorado Water Conservation Board. As of December 2001, instream flows for 970 stream miles in 133 stream segments are protected by decree in the Rio Grande basin. Efforts are ongoing to identify all waters containing Rio Grande cutthroat populations that should have instream flow filings made to protect stream flows. Regulatory controls of water quality in Colorado are implemented by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and Commission. Water quality standards are already in place to protect the maintenance of aquatic life in coldwater environments, and special resource restrictions are also available to provide further site-specific protection to water quality.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 17

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting continued existence of the species: No other factors are recognized as actively contributing toward a documented decline in Rio Grande cutthroat trout across its range in Colorado.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 18

DEFINITIONS

A. Geographic Management Unit: The range of the Rio Grande cutthroat has been divided into 8 geographic management units (GMUs) to bring a finer level of resolution to descriptions of population and habitat distribution and related maintenance and restoration work. These GMUs reflect the common sense divisions of large areas based on river drainages (hydro-unit). They do not necessarily reflect important differences in genetic variability in the fish based in geography or other types of adaptation to specific environments.

B. Genetic Purity (CRCT Task Force 2001): A+: A pure population with unique phenotypic, genetic or historical qualities that suggest special consideration and use for it in conservation planning. A: A pure population with no evidence of hybridization with non-native salmonids. A-: A population that is phenotypically representative but that has slight differences from the norm due to natural variation or human-caused movement of RGCT from other areas. B+: A population where 5% of genetic markers or phenotypes indicate hybridization with non-native salmonids. B: A population where 5% or more but less than 10% of genetic markers or phenotypes indicate hybridization with non-native salmonids.

C. Conservation Population: A conservation population is a reproducing and recruiting population of RGCT that is managed to preserve the historical genome and/or unique genetic, ecological, and/or behavioral characteristics within specific populations and within geographic units. Populations are further defined by quantifying introgression. In general, a conservation population is at least 90% RGCT (≤10% introgression), but may be lower depending upon circumstances (UDWR 2000). These populations retain all of the phenotypic attributes associated with the subspecies. This definition includes situations where genetically pure individuals coexist with introgressed individuals or they occur as hybrid swarms. Earlier categorizations of RGCT populations based on genetic purity relied on an A-D purity rating. During the transition between that system and the one outlined above,

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 19

populations that were rated B or better under the old system will be considered conservation populations.

D. Core Conservation Population: A core conservation population is a conservation population that is >99% pure, phenotypically true, and representative of the historic genome of RGCT (UDWR 2000). Core populations contain RGCT that have not been impacted by genetic alteration linked to human intervention. These populations serve as the primary source of gametes for introductions and reintroductions through transplants, or for broodstock development. These populations should not receive genetic material from other population sources unless there is evidence that inbreeding depression, random genetic drift or other factors have put the population in jeopardy. Earlier categorizations of RGCT populations based on genetic purity relied on an A-D purity rating. During the transition between that system and the one outlined above, populations that were rated A+, A, and A- under the old system will be considered core conservation populations.

E. Recreation Population: A RGCT refugia population created through periodic stocking of genetically pure RGCT from wild or captive brood stocks (UDWR 2000). The primary management focus of a RGCT recreation population is on the sport fish benefits to the public.

F. “At Risk And Declining” Population: A population which is impacted by limited habitat, habitat degradation or encroachment by non-native salmonids. Biomass is less than 20 lb/acre and population size is less than 500 individuals. Population statistics indicate a declining trend in biomass and density. Successful reproduction is inconsistent.

G. “At Risk And Stable” Population: A self-sustaining population which is impacted by limited habitat, habitat degradation or encroachment by non-native salmonids. Population trends are not increasing or decreasing in biomass and density. Biomass estimate is greater than 20 lb/ac and population size is over 500 individuals. Successful reproduction observed in at least 2 years during a 5-year span.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 20

H. “Secure and Stable” Population: A self-sustaining population that is secure from impact of limited habitat, habitat degradation or encroachment by non-native salmonids. Population trends are not increasing or decreasing in biomass or density. Biomass estimate is greater than 20 lb/ac and population size is over 500 individuals. Successful reproduction is observed in at least 2 years during a 5-year period.

I. “Secure and Expanding” Population: A self-sustaining population that is secure from impact of limited habitat, habitat degradation or encroachment by non-native trout. Population statistics indicate a trend of increasing biomass and density. Biomass estimate is greater than 20 lb/ac and population size is over 500 individuals. Successful reproduction is observed in at least 2 years during a 5-year period.

J. “Unknown” Population: A population that we have limited knowledge of genetic classification, population status, and/or habitat condition.

K. Hybrid: A hybrid is an individual fish, not a population, and is a fish that has cross-bred with other salmonids, commonly rainbow trout or other cutthroat trout subspecies. Populations containing hybrids offer genetic and ecological value to conservation efforts. The number of individuals and/or genes in a population that are hybrids can vary from population to population. The percentage of hybrid genes expressed in populations therefore, can be used as a relative measure of hybridization. This measure can be used as a component to assess the role of those populations in the conservation of the subspecies.

L. Introgression: Introgression is reproduction between RGCT and other cutthroat trout subspecies (intraspecific) or other salmonid species (interspecific), and occurs in varying degrees among populations. Some introgressed populations may offer genetic, ecological, or behavioral attributes valuable to conservation efforts for RGCT. Measures of introgression are varied among research entities and governmental

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 21

management agencies. The following formula will be used to calculate percent introgression (UDWR 2000):

%introgression= (total number of nonnative alleles in sample) X 100 (total number of alleles per individual)X (total number of individuals)

M. Metapopulation: A collection of localized subpopulations that are geographically distinct yet are genetically interconnected through natural movement of individual fish between subpopulations.

N. Phenotype: The physical manifestation of the interaction of an organism’s genetic information with its environment which results in a unique physical, physiological or behavioral trait.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 22

RGCT CONSERVATION STRATEGY

The primary goal of the Conservation Plan for Rio Grande cutthroat trout is

To assure the long term persistence of the RGCT subspecies throughout its historic range in Colorado by preserving its genetic integrity, reducing population fragmentation, and providing sufficient suitable habitat to support viable, self-sustaining populations.

The objective of the Conservation Plan for Rio Grande cutthroat trout is

To secure and maintain areas currently supporting RGCT conservation populations, and increase the distribution of RGCT where ecologically and economically feasible. Strive to restore and create 87 core and conservation populations in (375 miles) stream miles and 120 lake acres in 8 GMUs within the historic range. By 2015, restore 10 RGCT populations in occupied habitat and create 3 new populations in unoccupied habitat by chemical reclamation and reintroduction of genetically pure RGCT. Continue to manage 83 high lakes and streams by stocking genetically pure RGCT for angling recreation.

The RGCT conservation plan includes activities in four primary strategies: Protect existing and restored ecosystems, Population expansion, Restore degraded ecosystems, Planning and coordination.

Implementation of the action items associated with the strategies will be consistent with the stated goal and objective. Not all action items will be implemented for each population. Implementation of action items will be based on site specific conditions and are identified in the five year implementation schedule.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 23

Strategy 1. Protect Existing and Restored Ecosystems

Action Item 1.1: Secure core conservation and conservation populations by constructing in channel barriers. In channel barriers will be constructed downstream of existing populations which are at risk from invasion from non-native fish species or hybridized cutthroat populations. Action Item 1.2: Prevent introduction of non-native fish species. Enforce regulations that prohibit the stocking of hatchery reared fish and human movement of resident fish into RGCT habitat (CDOW regulations: Chapter 0, Article IX, #009.B) (Administrative directive W-6). Action Item 1.3: Regulate angling and enforce regulations. Populations of RGCT at risk from overharvest and excessive fishing mortality will be protected by appropriate fishing regulations. Fishing regulations will be enforced and monitored to ensure that their objectives are met. Action Item 1.4: Prevent introduction of Myxobolus cerebralis. Colorado Wildlife Commission policy D-9 prohibits stocking of Myxobolus cerebralis infected salmonid fish in protected habitats, which include RGCT waters and most salmonid habitats as defined by regulation (Chapter 0, #008.H; #009.G). Action Item 1.5: Monitor RGCT populations to detect changes. Monitor RGCT populations to measure cutthroat trout population statistics (biomass, density, and population size) to detect any changes in population trend. Action Item 1.6: Monitor RGCT watershed conditions to detect changes. Watersheds will be surveyed to detect changes in water quality, instream habitat, channel morphology, and riparian condition. Agency standardized procedures to monitor watershed conditions will be implemented. Action Item 1.7: Implement interpretive and educational programs. Develop an interpretation and education program addressing the values of conserving RGCT and the associated native community. Action Item 1.8: Maintain and restore existing RGCT core and conservation populations. Where feasible, at risk RGCT core and conservation populations will be secured by constructing a fish movement barrier, chemically reclaimed to remove nonnative salmonids, and restocked with genetically pure RGCT.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 24

Strategy 2. Population Expansion

Action Item 2.1: Identify potential reintroduction sites within RGCT historic range. Develop a list of potential reintroduction sites, and identify those sites that have the greatest potential for establishing metapopulations. Habitat suitability, complexity of fish removal, political and social implications will be considered when selecting potential reintroduction sites. The translocation model developed by Harig and Fausch (2002) will be used as a tool to help select and prioritize RGCT reintroduction sites. This information will be used to establish the long-term conservation goal in terms of populations and habitat area. Action Item 2.2: Secure reintroduction sites. Ecosystems selected for RGCT reintroduction will be secured from upstream movement of non-native fish and from instream, riparian and watershed degradation. Cooperative management agreements with public agencies and private organizations or individuals that have an interest in RGCT will be developed to ensure the long-term safety of the restored ecosystem. Action Item 2.3: Remove non-native fish species. In ecosystems selected for RGCT restoration, non-native fish will be removed using standard operating procedures for either rotenone or antimycin. Physical removal of nonnative fish species by electrofishing will be used in areas where chemical reclamation is not feasible. Action Item 2.4: Re-establish connectivity between core populations in pursuit of a metapopulation status. Where feasible, remove barriers to connect core conservation populations to create a metapopulation. Action Item 2.5: Stock restoration sites with genetically pure Rio Grande cutthroat. Restored ecosystems will be stocked with RGCT determined to be genetically pure using a complete suite of assessment techniques. Fish will be stocked either by transplant of juvenile and /or adult fish from a donor water, or stocked from hatchery source. Introduced populations will be considered restored when natural recruitment has sustained them for ten years.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 25

Action Item 2.6: Consider reintroduction of other Rio Grande native fish species. Where habitat is appropriate and suitable, recreate the native fish assemblage by stocking Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius) and Rio Grande chub (Gila pandora). Action Item 2.7: Develop and maintain feral and captive RGCT brood stocks. Maintain genetic diversity of Haypress Lake feral broodstock by periodically transplanting pure RGCT from designated wild populations. Annually collect eggs to augment captive broodstock at Pitkin Hatchery. Maintain disease certification by annual fish health inspection. Action Item 2.8: Stock genetically pure RGCT in wilderness lakes and streams. Continue to stock genetically pure RGCT fingerlings into wilderness lakes and streams to provide recreational fishing opportunity for the native cutthroat trout.

Strategy 3. Restore Degraded Habitat

Action Item 3.1: Improve RGCT watershed conditions. Rio Grande cutthroat trout habitat requirements will be considered on watersheds inhabited by RGCT or designated for RGCT restoration. Coordinate with responsible land management agencies to implement existing standards and guidelines for watershed management in RGCT ecosystems (USDA Forest Service 1996, USDI Bureau of Land Management 1997). Work in cooperation with land management agencies and private land owners to develop plans to mitigate adverse impacts of watershed activities on water quality, instream habitat, channel morphology, and riparian areas. Action Item 3.2: Improve RGCT lake and stream habitats. Habitat improvement techniques will be used where appropriate to provide missing habitat components or improve existing ones. These techniques include constructing instream structures to improve pool riffle ratio, streambank stabilization, riparian management, instream cover, and spawning gravel enhancement. Action Item 3.3: Acquire instream flow rights and conservation pools where needed. Apply for minimum stream flow rights through Colorado Water Conservation Board. Negotiate conservation pool agreements to maintain static lake levels. Support the Rio Grande National Forest efforts to implement and enforce Forest Reserve Water Rights. Pursue where possible, purchase of water rights to secure adequate stream flows.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 26

Strategy 4. Planning and Coordination

Action Item 4.1: Identify existing populations and suitable habitat. Continue inventory of potential RGCT waters until all remnant populations and potential habitat have been identified. Collect population, genetic and habitat information on all RGCT populations within the historic range of RGCT. Action Item 4.2: Complete genetic analyses on known or potential RGCT populations. The genetic status of all known or potential RGCT populations will be assessed using the most effective genetic identification techniques. Action Item 4.3: Identify Core Conservation, Conservation and Recreation populations. Describe RGCT populations based on conservation status, level of introgression, population size and unique characteristics. Action Item 4.4: Develop and maintain a RGCT database. Develop and maintain a database that contains RGCT population data including, genetic, habitat, and inventory information. Action Item 4.5: Provide an annual summary of conservation activities to RGCT Conservation Team. At annual meetings of the RGCT Conservation Team, present a summary report of RGCT conservation activities. Action Item 4.6: Develop a RGCT brood stock management plan. Develop guidelines to manage feral and hatchery brood fish operations to optimize genetic diversity. Action Item 4.7: Prepare interagency conservation plans. Prepare conservation plans with USFS, NPS, and BLM that outline strategies for watershed management, population protection and enhancement. Roles, responsibilities and commitments from the responsible agencies will be outlined in the plans. Action Item 4.8: Evaluate and monitor land management decisions. Review and evaluate all land management decisions that could impact RGCT populations including timber management, livestock grazing management, road construction, and mineral development and water diversions. Action Item 4.9: Cooperative interstate RGCT conservation effort. Establish interstate, rangewide cooperative management strategies to conserve and restore RGCT populations (CDOW et.al. 2003).

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 27

RGCT CONSERVATION PLAN: FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Protection Activities:

Alamosa-Trinchera GMU: 1. Coordinate with landowners to secure RGCT populations by constructing fish movement barriers on Jaroso Creek, Torcido Creek, Alamosito Creek, and Vallejos Creek. 2. Monitor populations in 25 streams and 3 lakes. 3. Remove brook trout by electrofishing in West Indian Creek, and Placer Creek watersheds. Canadian River Headwaters GMU: 1. Monitor RGCT population in Ricardo Creek. Conejos River GMU: 1. Secure Lake Fork Conejos River by repairing fish movement barrier. 2. Monitor populations in Cascade Creek, Osier Creek and Rio De Los Pinos #2. Rio Chama GMU: 1. Monitor population at Nabor Creek, Native Lake, and Wolf Creek. Rio Grande Headwaters GMU: 1. Monitor RGCT populations in Pass Creek, West Bellows Creek, West Alder Creek and Haypress Lake. 2. Remove brook trout from Haypress Lake by trap net during fall spawn run. Saguache Creek GMU: 1. Secure North Carnero Creek with a fish movement barrier. 2. Monitor populations in 15 streams. San Luis Creek GMU: 1. Monitor populations in Medano Creek, Hudson Branch Medano Creek and Little Medano Creek. Upper Rio Grande GMU: 1. Monitor populations in East Costilla Creek, West Costilla Creek and Glacier Lake.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 28

Population Expansion Activities:

Alamosa-Trinchera GMU: 1. Restore Trinchera Creek watershed (Trinchera Creek, North Trinchera Creek, South Trinchera Creek and Deep Canyon) by chemical reclamation. 2. Transplant from donor stream or stock genetically pure RGCT to Cat Creek. 3. Continue aerial plants and pack plants to high lakes and streams for fishing recreation. Conejos River GMU: 1. Restore Lake Fork Conejos River watershed (Lake Fork Conejos River, Big Lake, Rock Lake) by chemical reclamation. 2. Continue aerial plants and pack plants to high lakes and streams for fishing recreation. Rio Grande Headwaters GMU: 1. Continue annual spawntake and disease evaluation at Haypress Lake. 2. Continue aerial plants and pack plants to high lakes and streams for fishing recreation. Saguache Creek GMU: 1. Restore Big Springs Creek by chemical reclamation. 2. Continue aerial plants and pack plants to high lakes and streams for fishing recreation. San Luis Creek GMU: 1. Continue aerial plants to high lakes for fishing recreation.

Restore Degraded Habitat

Alamosa-Trinchera GMU: 1. Work with landowners to protect riparian habitat from adverse impacts of timber and livestock grazing activities. Conejos River GMU: 1. Coordinate with USFS to protect and improve riparian habitat on RGCT streams. 2. Coordinate with Lake Fork Ranch owner to construct dam and spillway on Lake Fork Conejos River.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 29

Rio Chama GMU: 1. Coordinate with USFS to protect Wolf Creek watershed from adverse impacts of timber harvest activity. Rio Grande Headwaters GMU: 1. Install aeration system at Haypress Lake to prevent summer or winter kill. 2. Coordinate with landowners to install coanda screen and new diversion structure on Roaring Creek to eliminate movement of brook trout to Haypress Lake. 3. Maintain spawning channel at Haypress Lake. Saguache Creek GMU: 1. Coordinate with landowners and land management agencies to protect riparian habitat on RGCT streams from impacts of livestock grazing activities. San Luis Creek GMU: 1. Install new diversion structures on Medano Creek that are equipped with coanda wire screens to prevent emigration of RGCT via irrigation ditches. 2. Support efforts to purchase water rights to maintain suitable flows on Medano Creek.

Planning and Coordination Activities:

Alamosa-Trinchera GMU: 1. Evaluate potential to restore Ute Creek and Placer Creek watersheds. 2. Complete genetic evaluation for 20 populations (Alamosito Creek, Cuates Creek, North Fork Culebra Creek, Deep Canyon, Jaroso Creek, Jim Creek, Rhodes Gulch, Rough Canyon, San Francisco Creek, Middle Fork San Francisco Creek, Torcido Creek, North Fork Trinchera Creek, South Fork Trinchera Creek, Little Ute Creek, Vallejos Creek #2, North Fork Vallejos Creek, West Indian Creek, North Fork West Indian Creek, South Fork West Indian Creek, Willow Creek). 3. Inventory potential RGCT waters: San Francisco Creek, El Fragoso Creek, Bernardino Creek and El Perdido Creek. Canadian River Headwaters GMU: 1. Evaluate potential to restore Ricardo Creek with NMGF and landowners. 2. Complete genetic evaluation for Ricardo Creek cutthroat. 3. Inventory potential RGCT waters: Fish Creek and Little Vermejo Creek.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 30

Conejos River GMU: 1. Evaluate Elk Creek and Canon Verde watersheds for potential as a restoration sites. 2. Complete genetic evaluation for Cascade Creek, Osier Creek and Canon Verde. Rio Chama GMU: 1. Inventory Rio Chamita and Sexto Creek. 2. Complete genetic evaluation for Rio Chamita and Sexto Creek, if necessary. 3. Evaluate potential to restore Rio Chamita watershed with NMGF and Diamond S Ranch. 4. Evaluate potential to restore and expand range of RGCT on Wolf Creek with NMGF and landowners. Rio Grande Headwaters GMU: 1. Complete genetic evaluations for West Alder Creek, West Bellows Creek, and Pass Creek. 2. Evaluate potential to restore Ivy Creek, Little Squaw Creek, Miners Creek, Quartzite Creek and West Bellows Creek. Saguache Creek GMU: 1. Complete genetic evaluations for Carnero Creek, Deep Creek, East Middle Creek, Miners Creek, Whale Creek, Wannamaker Creek, and Tuttle Creek. 2. Evaluate potential to restore La Garita Creek watershed. San Luis Creek GMU: 1. Complete genetic evaluation for Medano Creek, Little Medano Creek and Hudson Branch of Medano Creek. 2. Evaluate potential to restore Sand Creek, Major Creek and Garner Creek watersheds.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 31

LITERATURE CITED

Alves, J.E. 1998. Status of Rio Grande cutthroat trout in Colorado. Management Report, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA. Alves, J. E. 2002. 2002 Fisheries Inventories, Rio Grande River Basin. Colorado Divsion of Wildlife, Monte Vista, CO. Behnke, R.J. 1967. Rare and endangered species: Rio Grande trout (Salmo clarki virginalis). Technical report, Colorado Cooperative Fishery Unit, Ft. Collins, CO. Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6, Bethesda, MD. Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. The Free Press, New York, 207-210 Behnke, R.J. and M. Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trout. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-28. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1982. Rio Grande cutthroat trout management plan. Management plan (draft), Colorado Division of Wildlife, Southwest Region, Montrose, CO. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1992. Rio Grande cutthroat trout management plan. Management plan (draft), Colorado Division of Wildlife, Southwest Region, Montrose, CO. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1996. Rio Grande cutthroat trout management plan. Management plan (draft), Colorado Division of Wildlife, Southwest Region, Montrose, CO. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1999. Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation plan. Management plan (draft), Colorado Division of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2002. Rio Grande cutthroat trout status review for Colorado. Unpublished report submitted to USFWS. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Colorado Division of Wildlife, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, United States Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and Jicarilla Apache Nation. 2003. Conservation Agreement for the Range- Wide Preservation and Management of the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout. Colorado Division of Wildlife Blue Book. 1979-1986. Meristic counts for Colorado River cutthroat and Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Montrose, CO.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 32

CRCT Task Force. 2001. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. 87 p. Girard, C. 1857. Notice upon the species of the genus Salmo of authors observed chiefly in Oregon and California. Proceedings of Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 8:217-200. Harig, A. L. 2000. Factors influencing success of cutthroat trout translocations. Doctoral dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Harig, A. L., K. D. Fausch, and M. K. Young. 2000. Factors influencing success of translocated greenback cutthroat trout populations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:994-1004. Harig, A. L., and K. D. Fausch. 2002. Minimum habitat requirements for establishing translocated cutthroat trout populations. Ecological Applications 12:535-551. Hatch, M. D., D.E. Cowley, J. E. Sublette, G. Z. Jacobi, and S. J. Hermann. 1998. Native fish faunal regions of New Mexico. Unpublished Report, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Hickman, T. and R. F. Raleigh.1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models; Cutthroat Trout. FWS/OBS-82-110.5. Hilderbrand, R. H., and J. L. Kershner. 2000. Conserving inland cutthroat trout in small streams: how much stream is enough? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:513-520. Hubert, W. A., R.W. Stonecypher, W.A. Gern, and J. Bobbit. 1994. Response of cutthroat trout embryos to reduced incubation temperatures at different developmental stages. The Progressive Fish Culturist 56:185-187. Leary, R.F. 1988. Unpublished report to Colorado Division of Wildlife on electrophoresis analysis of Rio Grande cutthroat collected at Placer Creek and West Indian Creek, Colorado. Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab, University of Montana. Leary, R.F. 2001. Unpublished report to Colorado Division of Wildlife on electrophoresis analysis of cutthroat trout collected at Bear Creek, Cross Creek, Jacks Creek and Haypress Lake. Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab, University of Montana. Leary, R.F. 2002. Unpublished report to Colorado Division of Wildlife on electrophoresis analysis of cutthroat trout collected at Bennett Creek, Cave Creek, Middle Placer Creek, Placer Creek, Prong Creek, Sangre de Cristo Creek, South Placer Creek, Wagon Creek, and Wolf Creek. Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab, University of Montana.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 33

Leary, R.F. 2003. Unpublished report to Colorado Division of Wildlife on electrophoresis analysis of cutthroat trout collected at East Pass Creek, Middle Fork Carnero Creek, North Fork Carnero Creek, and South Fork Carnero Creek. Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab, University of Montana. Leary, R.F. and N. Kanda. 2000. Unpublished report to Colorado Division of Wildlife on electrophoresis analysis of cutthroat collected at Johns Creek, Colorado. Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab, University of Montana. Markiw, M.E. 1992. Salmonid whirling disease. Washington, D.C.: US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 17. 11pp. McIntyre, J. D., and B. E. Rieman. 1995. Westslope cutthroat trout. Pages 1-15 in M. K. Young, editor. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. General technical report RM-GTR-256. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Nehring, B. 1998. Stream fisheries investigations. Special regulations evaluations. Colorado Divsion of Wildlife Job 2 Final Report, Fed. Aid Proj. F-237. 138 pp. Peterson D. and K. Fausch, 2002. Demography, Dispersal, and Effects of Nonnative Brook Trout on Native Cutthroat Trout in Colorado Streams. Final Project Report, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Proebstel, D.S., A.M. Martinez, and R.P. Ellis, 1996. Taxonomic Status of Cutthroat Trout, Rio Grande suckers, and Arkansas Darters Determined Through Morphometric, Meristic, and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis. Unpublished Report to Colorado Division of Wildlife. Proebstel, D.S. and R.P. Ellis. 1997. Report on Four Populations of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Southern Colorado Streams. World Salmonid Research Institute and Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Proebstel, D.S. and R.P. Ellis. 1998. Report on Two Populations of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Southern Colorado Streams. World Salmonid Research Institute and Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Proebstel, D.S. and R.P. Ellis. 1999. Report on Four Populations of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Southern Colorado Streams. World Salmonid Research Institute and Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Raleigh, R. F. and D. A. Duff. 1981. Trout stream habitat improvement; ecology and management. Pages 67-77 in W. King (ed.) Proceedings of a Wild Trout Symposium II. Yellowstone National Park, WY. Sept 24-25, 1979.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 34

Rinne, J. N. 1980. Spawning habitat and behavior of Gila Trout, a rare salmonid of the southwestern United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:83-91. Rinne, J.N. 1995. Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Pages 24-27 in M.K. Young, editor. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RM-256. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Stumpff, W. K. and J. Cooper. 1996. Rio Grande cutthroat trout, Onchorhynchus clarki Virginalis. Pages 74-86, in D. Duff editor, Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout: distribution, status and habitat management Implications. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah, USA. Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M.E. Sublette. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. USDA, Forest Service. 1996. Revised land and resource management plan, Rio Grande National Forest. Monte Vista, CO. USDA, Forest Service. 2003. Management Indicator Species, Forest Plan Amendment to Revised land and resource management plan, Rio Grande National Forest. Monte Vista, CO. USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Decision record and finding of no significant impact to adoption standards for public land health and guidelines for livestock grazing management in Colorado, riparian standard II. BLM state office, Denver, Co. USFWS. 1998. Greenback cutthroat trout recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. USFWS. 2003. Reconsidered Finding for an amended petition to list westslope cutthroat trout as threatened throughout its range. Federal Register, vol. 68, no. 152, 50 CFR Part 17. Department of Interior. UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources). 2000. Cutthroat Trout Management: A position Paper, Genetic Considerations Associated with Cutthroat Trout Management. Publication Number 00-26 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Young, M. K. 1995. Synthesis of management and research considerations. Pages 55-61 in M. K. Young, editor. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. General technical report RM-GTR-256. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Young, M. K., and A. L. Harig. 2001. A critique of the recovery of greenback cutthroat trout. Conservation Biology 15:1575-1584.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 35

APPENDIX I

INFORMATION ABOUT RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT POPULATIONS

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 36

KEY TO TABLES

Conservation Population: A conservation population is a reproducing and recruiting population of RGCT that is managed to preserve the historical genome and/or unique genetic, ecological, and/or behavioral characteristics within specific populations and within geographic units. Populations are further defined by quantifying introgression. In general, a conservation population is at least 90% RGCT (≤10% introgression), but may be lower depending upon circumstances. These populations retain all of the phenotypic attributes associated with the subspecies. This definition includes situations where genetically pure individuals coexist with introgressed individuals or they occur as hybrid swarms. Earlier categorizations of RGCT populations based on genetic purity relied on an A-D purity rating. During the transition between that system and the one outlined above, populations that were rated B or better under the old system will be considered conservation populations. Core Conservation Population: A core conservation population is a conservation population that is >99% pure, phenotypically true, and representative of the historic genome of RGCT. Core populations contain RGCT that have not been impacted by genetic alteration linked to human intervention. These populations serve as the primary source of gametes for introductions and reintroductions through transplants, or for broodstock development. These populations should not receive genetic material from other population sources unless there is evidence that inbreeding depression, random genetic drift or other factors have put the population in jeopardy. Earlier categorizations of RGCT populations based on genetic purity relied on an A-D purity rating. During the transition between that system and the one outlined above, populations that were rated A+, A, and A- under the old system will be considered core conservation populations. Recreation Population: A RGCT refugia population created through periodic stocking of genetically pure RGCT from wild or captive brood stocks. The primary management focus of a RGCT recreation population is on the sport fish benefits to the public. Unknown Population: A cutthroat trout population that we have limited knowledge of genetic classification, population status, and/or habitat condition.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 37

“At Risk And Declining” Population: A population which is impacted by limited habitat, habitat degradation or encroachment by non-native salmonids. Biomass is less than 20 lb/acre and population size is less than 500 individuals. Population statistics indicate a declining trend in biomass and density. Successful reproduction is inconsistent. “At Risk And Stable” Population: A self-sustaining population which is impacted by limited habitat, habitat degradation or encroachment by non-native salmonids. Population trends are not increasing or decreasing in biomass and density. Biomass estimate is greater than 20 lb/ac and population size is over 500 individuals. Successful reproduction observed in at least 2 years during a 5-year span. “Secure and Stable” Population: A self-sustaining population that is secure from impact of limited habitat, habitat degradation or encroachment by non-native salmonids. Population trends are not increasing or decreasing in biomass or density. Biomass estimate is greater than 20 lb/ac and population size is over 500 individuals. Successful reproduction is observed in at least 2 years during a 5-year period. “Secure and Expanding” Population: A self-sustaining population that is secure from impact of limited habitat, habitat degradation or encroachment by non-native trout. Population statistics indicate a trend of increasing biomass and density. Biomass estimate is greater than 20 lb/ac and population size is over 500 individuals. Successful reproduction is observed in at least 2 years during a 5-year period.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 38

Purity = Genetic Purity A = Pure A- = Pure, but slightly different from norm B+ = Essentially pure (<5% of characters indicate hybridization) B = Slight hybridization (5-10% of characters indicate hybridization) C = Some hybridization (15-20% of characters indicate hybridization) D = Distinct hybridization U = Unknown Purity

Adult Population = Numbers of fish greater than 4.7 inches (120 mm) in length.

Barrier = Type of barrier to fish movement 0 = None Apparent 1 = Constructed Barrier, Road Culvert, Water Diversion 2 = Chemical/Temperature/Biological Barrier 3 = Gradient/Velocity Barrier to Fish Migration 4 = Natural, Single Point Barrier 5 = Natural, Multiple Site Barrier 6 = No Information

Other Salmonids = What other salmonids are present? NONE = none present NO INFO = no information provided RBT = rainbow trout BKT = brook trout BNT = brown trout YSC = Yellowstone cutthroat trout SRC = Snake River cutthroat trout CSC = Colorado River cutthroat trout PPC = Greenback x Yellowstone cutthroat trout SPL = Splake (Lake trout x Brook trout)

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 39

Table 2. Summary Report: Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Genetic Analysis. Sample Analysis Year Sub-Basin Water Name Water Code Rating Type Geneticist Sampled Genetics Remarks Mi Ac Alamosa-Trinchera Alamosito Creek 38248 A M O 1979 CDOW Blue Book 6.4 A M O 1984 CDOW Blue Book 6.4 Alamosa-Trinchera Cat Creek 44242 A- M P 1998 Typical of RGCT, no evidence of PPC or YSC 6.2 A- DM P 1998 Most likely pure RGCT that has been isolated 6.2 Alamosa-Trinchera Cat Creek, North Fork 49418 A- Purity rating based on Cat Creek rating 3.6 Alamosa-Trinchera Cat Creek, South Fork 49420 A- Purity rating based on Cat Creek analysis 4.0 Alamosa-Trinchera Cuates Creek 38141 A M O 1979 CDOW Blue Book, typical RGCT 4.6 Alamosa-Trinchera Culebra Creek, North Fork 39493 A- M O 1979 CDOW blue book 11.0 Alamosa-Trinchera Deep Canyon 38350 Transplant from West Indian Creek (A) 3.3 Alamosa-Trinchera Grayback Creek 38459 A Purity based on Placer Creek rating (JEA-61). 3.5 Sample submitted to Leary 2001. Alamosa-Trinchera Jaroso Creek 48066 A M P 1997 5.8 A DM P 1997 5.8 Alamosa-Trinchera Jim Creek 44254 A Transplant from West Indian Creek, Jaroso Creek 6.1 and Torcido Creek (A). Alamosa-Trinchera Jim Creek, South Fork 43408 A Purity based on Jim Creek rating. 2.0 Alamosa-Trinchera Placer Creek 44711 B M O 1978 Langlois and Zuckerman 1981 5.2 A E L 1987 5.2 A- M P 1994 5.2 A DM P 1994 5.2 A E L 2001 JEA-61 Pure RGCT 5.2 Alamosa-Trinchera Placer Creek, Middle Fork 49305 A E L 2001 JEA-58 Pure RGCT 4.8 Alamosa-Trinchera Placer Creek, South Fork 49292 A E L 2001 JEA-59 Pure RGCT 4.7 Alamosa-Trinchera Rhodes Gulch 43840 A Transplant from Lake Fork Conejos (A) 3.4 Alamosa-Trinchera Rough Canyon 39691 A Transplant from West Indian Creek, Placer Creek 1.0 and Osier Creek (A) Alamosa-Trinchera San Francisco Creek 42870 A Transplant from West Indian Creek, Placer Creek, 9.0 Torcido Creek, LF Conejos (A) Alamosa-Trinchera San Francisco Creek, MF 44850 A Transplant from LF Conejos, Torcido Creek, W 5.8 Indian Creek Alamosa-Trinchera San Francisco Lake, UW 93283 A Stocked with RGCT broodstock progeny 4.2 Alamosa-Trinchera Sangre De Cristo Creek 42882 A M O 1934 CDOW RGCT files 17.0

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 40

Sample Analysis Year Sub-Basin Water Name Water Code Rating Type Geneticist Sampled Genetics Remarks Mi Ac Alamosa-Trinchera Sangre De Cristo Creek 42882 B+ M O 1984 Nankervis 1983, hybrid w/RBT 17.0 A DM P 1994 17.0 A M P 1994 17.0 A E L 2001 JEA-64 pure RGCT 17.0 Alamosa-Trinchera Torcido Creek 38137 A M O 1979 CDOW Blue Book 5.9 A M O 1984 CDOW Blue Book 5.9 A- M P 1996 Downgrade: lack of BT in 2 specimens 5.9 A DM P 1996 5.9 Alamosa-Trinchera Torsido Creek 43668 A Transplant from W Indian Creek, Torcido Creek 4.1 Alamosa-Trinchera Trinchera Creek #2 43719 A- M O 1984 CDOW Blue Book, SP downgrade, transplant 6.3 from W Indian Creek Alamosa-Trinchera Trinchera Creek, NF 48670 A M O 1984 CDOW Blue Book, transplant from W Indian 7.7 Creek (A) Alamosa-Trinchera Trinchera Creek, SF 48682 A Transplant from West Indian Creek (A) 9.3 Alamosa-Trinchera Ute Creek 37951 A M O 1853 Girard (1856) described RGCT from these 12.6 specimens collected on Ute Creek. Alamosa-Trinchera Ute Creek, Little 49379 A DM Transplant from Placer and W Indian Creeks (A) 2.6 Alamosa-Trinchera Ute Lake, Little, Lower 97659 A Transplant from Placer Creek and W Indian Creek 3 Alamosa-Trinchera Ute Lake, Little, Upper 97647 A Transplant from Placer Creek and W Indian Creek 2 Alamosa-Trinchera Vallejos Creek #2 38143 A M O 1984 CDOW Blue Book 3.0 Alamosa-Trinchera Vallejos Creek, NF 48078 7.0 A M O 1979 CDOW Blue Book 7.0 Alamosa-Trinchera Wagon Creek 44456 A E L 2001 JEA-54 pure RGCT 11.5 Alamosa-Trinchera West Indian Creek 44709 A M B 1958 Behnke 1967 6.4 A E L 1987 6.4 A DM P 1994 Proebstel and Ellis, baseline for pure RGCT 6.4 A M P 1994 6.4 Alamosa-Trinchera West Indian Creek, NF 39528 A Purity based on West Indian Creek rating. 3.0 Alamosa-Trinchera West Indian Creek, SF 39530 A Purity based on West Indian Creek rating. 6.0 Alamosa-Trinchera Willow Creek 39831 A No taxonomic analysis available. Isolated and 8.0 secure. No stocking records for this stream. Phenotype is characteristic of other pure RGCT in this drainage. At this time considered "A". Canadian River Fish Creek 29785 U 3.5 Canadian River Little Vermejo River 38145 U 6.0

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 41

Sample Analysis Year Sub-Basin Water Name Water Code Rating Type Geneticist Sampled Genetics Remarks Mi Ac Canadian River Ricardo Creek 30635 B+ M B 1975 11 lack BT, possible hybrid w/RBT 6.0 A M P 1996 6.0 A DM P 1996 Rare RGCT haplotypes 6.0 Conejos River Big Lake 88585 A Transplant from W Indian Creek 11.9 Conejos River Canyon Verde 38756 B M O 1982 CDOW Report 1982. Appear to be YSN. 4.0 Considerable variation in spotting. Conejos River Cascade Creek 40147 A M O 1980 Langlois and Zuckerman, 1981 2.5 A- M O 1982 Harrison, 1983, CDOW bluebook, PC 2.5 Conejos River Conejos River, Lake Fork 39289 A Transplanted from West Indian Creek (A) 4.1 4.1 Conejos River Osier Creek 44444 A M O 1979 Zuckerman and Langlois, 1980 2.6 A M O 1982 Harrison, 1983 2.6 A M P 1994 Proebstel and Ellis, 1996 2.6 A DM P 1994 Proebstel and Ellis, 1996 2.6 Conejos River Rio De Los Pinos #2 42189 A Transplant from West Indian Creek (A) 1.6 Conejos River Rock Lake 96417 A Transplant from West Indian Creek 5 Rio Chama Nabor Creek 43648 A Transplant from W Indian Cr (A) 2.3 C M O 1981 Behnke, 1981, prior to chemical reclamation 2.3 Rio Chama Native Lake 97661 A Transplant from Nabor Creek 5 Rio Chama Rio Chamita 43864 B+ M O 1985 CDOW Blue Book, BT downgrade, possible 4.0 hybrid w/RBT Rio Chama Sexto Creek 43965 B M O 1985 DOW Blue Book, CDOW 1986 Report 3.5 Rio Chama Wolf Creek 42343 B M O 1981 Wagner 1981 0.9 A M O 1982 Harrison 1983, CDOW Blue Book 0.9 A- M O 1986 CDOW Blue Book 0.9 A E L 2001 JEA-55 pure RGCT 0.9 Rio Grande Alder Creek, West 47755 B M O 1982 CDOW Blue Book 8.2 Rio Grande Bellows Creek, West Fork 38376 C M P 1998 Hybridization with Yellowstone cutthroat and 7.3 rainbow trout C DM P 1998 Hybridization with rainbow trout 7.3 Rio Grande Haypress Lake 90388 A DN L 2000 PINES Analysis 25.9 A E L 2000 25.9 Rio Grande Pass Creek 42010 B+ M O 1982 Harrison, 1983. PC, SP downgrade, hybrid 9.1 Rio Grande Pass Creek, West Fork 47440 A E L 2000 Hatchery/Haypress Lk brood stock 1.0

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 42

Sample Analysis Year Sub-Basin Water Name Water Code Rating Type Geneticist Sampled Genetics Remarks Mi Ac Saguache Creek Carnero Creek 38770 B NI Purity based on values from South Fork Carnero 8.3 Creek. Need genetic evaluation. Saguache Creek Carnero Creek, MF 38782 B+ DM P 1997 9.8 A- M P 1997 Judged to be "good" RGCT 9.8 A E L 2002 JEA-72 (9/12/02) Leary Report (9/24/03) :" 9.8 Non-hybridized Rio Grande cutthroat Saguache Creek Carnero Creek, NF 38794 B M O 1984 CDOW Blue Book 8.4 A DM P 1996 TYPICAL FOR RGCT IN CO 8.4 A- M P 1996 Judged to be essentially pure RGCT 8.4 A E L 2002 JEA-70 (8/26/02). Leary Report (9/24/03): 8.4 "Non-hybridized Rio Grande cutthroat trout Saguache Creek Carnero Creek, SF 38807 B M O 1978 Langlois and Zuckerman, 1981, hybrid w/RBT, 13.8 phenotypically good C M O 1981 Wagner, 1981, CDOW Blue Book, hybrid 13.8 w/RBT, phenotypically good C M O 1982 Harrison, 1983, CDOW Blue Book, hybrid 13.8 w/RBT, phenotypically good B M O 1984 CDOW Blue Book, hybrid w/RBT, 13.8 phenotypically good B+ M P 1998 Meristics indicators depict this population as 13.8 RGCT w/RBT influence B+ DM P 1998 Good RGCT, but only 90% pure 13.8 A E L 2002 JEA-71 (9/12/02). Leary Report (9/24/03) : 13.8 "Non-hybridized Rio Grande cutthroat trout Saguache Creek Cave Creek 38871 A- M O 1984 CDOW Blue Book, sample size too small, PC and 6.1 SP downgrade. A E L 2001 JEA-63 Pure RGCT 6.1 Saguache Creek Cross Creek 38581 A DN L 2000 PINE analysis 5.0 A E L 2000 Allozymes, pure RGCT 5.0 Saguache Creek Deep Creek 42432 U NI 5.2 Saguache Creek East Pass Creek 42022 A DM P 1997 JEA-43 (11/7/97) 7.7 A M P 1997 JEA-43 (11/7/97) 7.7 A E L 2002 JEA-75 (10/7/02). Leary Report (9/24/03): 7.7 "Non-hybridized Rio Grande cutthroat trout Saguache Creek Jacks Creek 38579 8.9 A E L 2000 Allozymes 8.9 Saguache Creek Middle Creek, East 41587 A Transplant from Osier Creek and Placer Creek (A) 3.2 D M O 1982 Harrison,1983 3.2 Saguache Creek Miners Creek 44432 A M P 1998 4.3

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 43

Sample Analysis Year Sub-Basin Water Name Water Code Rating Type Geneticist Sampled Genetics Remarks Mi Ac Saguache Creek Miners Creek 44432 A DM P 1998 4.3 A DN P 1998 4.3 Saguache Creek Prong Creek 38271 A E L 2001 JEA-65 Pure RGCT 3.6 Saguache Creek Tuttle Creek 45890 A M P 6.9 A DM P 1996 6.9 Saguache Creek Unknown Creek 48042 A Transplant from Osier Creek (A) 3.1 Saguache Creek Wannamaker Creek 43935 B+ M O 1981 Wagner 1981, BT & PC downgrade, RBT hybrids 6.8 B M O 1982 Harrison 1983, PC & SP downgrade, RBT 6.8 B+ M O 1983 CDOW Blue Book, SP downgrade, RBT hybrids 6.8 Saguache Creek Whale Creek 42420 B- M O 1981 Wagner 1981, SP & PC downgrade, RBT hybrids 5.0 San Luis Creek Medano Creek 41501 A Transplant from Osier Creek, Placer Creek, West 13.0 Indian Creek (A) San Luis Creek Medano Creek, Hudson Br 39590 A Transplant from Osier Creek, Placer Creek, West 3.0 Indian Creek (A) San Luis Creek Medano Creek, Little 48143 A Transplant from Placer Creek (A) 5.5 San Luis Creek Medano Lake 93512 A E L 2000 Stocked with RGCT brood stock progeny 2.7 Upper Rio Grande Costilla Creek, East Fork 39390 A E O 1997 Keeler-Foster/NMSU 2.3 A E L 2000 Pure RGCT planted following chemical 2.3 reclamation in 2002. RGCT from CDOW brood stock that Leary determined were pure. Upper Rio Grande Costilla Creek, West Fork 33890 B+ E O 1997 Keeler-Foster/NMSU. 2% introgression or about 1.4 98% pure. A E L 2000 Stocked with pure RGCT from CDOW brood 1.4 stock. Leary determined the brood stock was Upper Rio Grande Glacier Lake 88291 A E L 2000 Stocked from hatchery/Haypress lake RGCT 6.5 brood fish after chemical restoration in 2002. Leary determined brood stock was pure RGCT.

Purity Codes A,Pure; A-,Pure but mixed w/other pure RGCT Pop.; B+,Essentially Pure; B,Slightly Hybridized; C,Some Hybridization; D,Distinct Hybridization; U,Unknown Genetics Techniques Codes DM,DNA Mitochondrial; DN,DNA Nuclear; E,Electrophoretic; M,Meristic; P,Phenotype; OT,Other Genetics Analyst Codes B,Behnke; S,Shizoawa; L,Leary; P,Proebstel; W,Williams; E,Evans; O,Other

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 44

Table 3. Summary Report: Rio Grande cutthroat trout Core Conservation and Conservation Populations.

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Miles/Acres Adult Pop Barrier Other Salmonids Alamosa-Trinchera Core Alamosito Creek A 6.4 627 0 NONE Cat Creek A- 6.2 3224 1 NONE Cat Creek, North Fork A- 3.6 1 NONE Cat Creek, South Fork A- 4.0 1 NONE Cuates Creek A 4.6 1168 1 NONE Culebra Creek, North Fork A- 11.0 462 0 BNT, BKT, RBT Deep Canyon A 3.3 429 1 BKT Grayback Creek A 3.5 2475 1 BKT Jaroso Creek A 5.8 4211 1 NONE Jim Creek A 6.1 1500 1 BKT Jim Creek, South Fork A 2.0 1 NO INFO Placer Creek A 5.2 2226 1 BKT Placer Creek, Middle Fork A 4.8 3379 1 BKT Placer Creek, South Fork A 4.7 3412 1 BKT Rhodes Gulch A 3.4 690 4 NONE Rough Canyon A 1.0 219 2 NONE San Francisco Creek A 9.0 4176 1 NONE San Francisco Creek, Middle Fork A 5.8 592 1 NONE San Francisco Lake, Upper West A 4.2 6 NONE Sangre De Cristo Creek A 17.0 3621 1 BKT Torcido Creek A- 5.9 6856 1 NONE Torsido Creek A 4.1 33 1 BKT Trinchera Creek #2 A- 6.3 1827 1 BNT,BKT, RBT Trinchera Creek, North Fork A 7.7 1324 1 BKT Trinchera Creek, South Fork A 9.3 800 1 BKT Ute Creek A 12.6 983 0 BKT, RBT Ute Creek, Little A 2.6 304 5 NONE Ute Lake, Little, Lower A 3 4 NONE Ute Lake, Little, Upper A 2 4 NONE Vallejos Creek #2 A 3.0 960 0 BNT Vallejos Creek, North Fork A 7.0 1645 0 BNT Wagon Creek A 11.5 5796 1 BKT West Indian Creek A 6.4 1299 1 BKT West Indian Creek, North Fork A 3.0 1000 1 BKT West Indian Creek, South Fork A 6.0 1000 1 BKT Willow Creek A 8.0 208 1 NONE

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 45

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Miles/Acres Adult Pop Barrier Other Salmonids Canadian River Headwaters Core Ricardo Creek A 6.0 180 1 BKT Unknown Fish Creek U 3.5 6 NO INFO Little Vermejo River U 6.0 6 NO INFO

Conejos River Conservation Canyon Verde B 4.0 5 RBT, YSC

Conejos River Core Big Lake A 11.9 1 BKT, BNT Cascade Creek A- 2.5 2875 4 NONE Conejos River, Lake Fork A 4.1 271 1 BNT, BKT Osier Creek A 2.6 3838 1 NONE Rio De Los Pinos #2 A 1.6 242 5 NONE Rock Lake A 5 0 BKT, BNT

Rio Chama Conservation Rio Chamita B+ 4.0 424 0 BNT Sexto Creek B 3.5 0 BNT, RBT, CRC

Rio Chama Core Nabor Creek A 2.3 2323 1 NONE Native Lake A 5 100 6 NONE Wolf Creek A 2.7 2381 1 NONE

Rio Grande Headwaters Conservation Alder Creek, West B 8.2 1246 0 BKT Bellows Creek, West Fork C 7.3 0 BNT, BKT Pass Creek B+ 9.1 801 0 BKT, RBT

Rio Grande Headwaters Core Haypress Lake A 25.9 1000 0 BKT Pass Creek, West Fork A 1.0 236 0 BKT

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 46

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Miles/Acres Adult Pop Barrier Other Salmonids Saguache Creek Conservation Carnero Creek B 8.3 465 1 BNT Carnero Creek, Middle Fork B+ 9.8 1215 1 NONE Carnero Creek, South Fork B+ 13.8 26123 1 BKT Wannamaker Creek B+ 6.8 75 0 BKT Whale Creek B- 5.0 315 0 BKT

Saguache Creek Core Carnero Creek, North Fork A 8.4 2159 1 BNT Cave Creek A 6.1 397 1 BKT, BNT Cross Creek A 5.0 3310 1 NONE East Pass Creek A 7.7 1656 1 NONE Jacks Creek A 8.9 1104 1 BKT Middle Creek, East A 3.2 646 5 NONE Miners Creek A 4.3 933 5 BKT Prong Creek A 3.6 475 1 BKT Tuttle Creek A 6.9 1546 1 BKT Unknown Creek A 3.1 47 3 NONE

Saguache Creek Unknown Deep Creek U 5.2 165 0 BKT

San Luis Creek Core Medano Creek A 13.0 24544 4 NONE Medano Creek, Hudson Branch A 3.0 1626 1 NONE Medano Creek, Little A 5.5 154 5 NONE Medano Lake A 2.7 6 NONE

Upper Rio Grande Core Costilla Creek, East Fork A 2.3 1 NONE Costilla Creek, West Fork A 1.4 1 NONE Glacier Lake A 6.5 0 NONE

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 47

Table 4. Summary Report: Rio Grande cutthroat trout Recreation Populations.

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Miles Acres Barrier Other Salmonids Alamosa-Trinchera Cliff Lake A 8.4 6 BKT, PPC Hot Creek A 13.7 0 BNT Kerr Lake A 39.5 0 SRC, BKT La Jara Reservoir A 1375 0 BKT, SPL Lost Lake A 28.2 6 NONE Prospect Creek A 3.5 0 SRC Treasure Creek A 5.4 4 SRC

Conejos River

Ann Lake A 15.6 6 SRC, PPC Bear Lake A 18.3 6 RBT Beaver Lake A 4.2 6 SRC, PPC Blue Lake A 49.4 6 BKT, SRC, PPC Conejos River, Adams Fork A 7.5 6 RBT Conejos River, Middle Fork A 4.3 6 PPN Conejos River, North Fork A 3.5 6 RBT Conejos River, South Fork A 17.6 6 BKT, SRC, PPC Glacier Lake A 21.2 6 RBT Green Lake A 22.7 6 BKT, RBT Hanson Creek A 5.8 6 SRC, PPC Red Lake A 21.2 6 RBT Rock Lake A 7.2 6 NONE Timber Lake A 11.9 6 BKT Tobacco Lake A 12.8 6 SRC, PPC Trail Lake A 29.6 6 RBT Trujillo Meadows Reservoir A 69.2 6 BKT, BNT, RBT Twin Lake, Upper (W) A 2 6 RBT

Rio Chama

Archuleta Creek A 5.9 6 BNT Rio Chama, West Fork A 5.0 6 BNT

Rio Grande Headwaters

Alberta Park Reservoir A 40 6 BKT Black Mountain Lake A 5.9 6 BKT Brown Lake, Upper A 109.9 4 BKT, RBT Crystal Lake A 3 6 SRC, PPC

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 48

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Miles Acres Barrier Other Salmonids Rio Grande Headwaters

Goose Lake A 26.7 6 SRC, PPC Heart Lake A 16.8 6 BKT, BNT Lost Trail Creek A 10.0 6 BKT Lost Trail Creek, West A 5.7 0 BKT, SRC, CRC Poage Lake A 28.9 6 YSC, SRC, BKT, RBT Pole Creek A 6.3 6 CRC, PPC Rio Grande #5 A 14.8 6 BKT Rito Hondo Lake A 40 6 BKT, RBT Ruby Lake, Big A 29.6 6 BKT, RBT Ruby Lake, Little A 17.8 6 BKT, RBT Shaw Lake A 70 6 SRC, RBT, BKT Spruce Lake, Lower A 19.8 0 BKT Spruce Lake, Upper A 19.8 0 BKT Squaw Creek A 10.9 6 CRC, RBT Trout Lake A 23.7 6 SRC, PPC Ute Creek A 5.9 6 CRC, PPC Ute Creek, East A 3.0 6 NO INFO Ute Creek, Middle A 4.5 6 NO INFO Ute Creek, West A 4.5 6 NO INFO Ute Lake, Lower Twin (#2) A 4.7 6 SRC, PPC Ute Lake, Main (E) A 32.1 6 SRC Ute Lake, Middle A 11.4 6 SRC Ute Lake, Upper Twin (#1) A 15.8 6 SRC Ute Lake, Upper West A 4.7 6 SRC Ute Lake, West A 16.1 6 SRC, PPC Weminuche Creek A 5.8 6 PPC

Saguache Creek

Machin Lake A 11.4 6 SRC, RBT Saguache Creek, Middle A 17.2 4 BKT, CRC Saguache Creek, South Fork A 12.2 0 BKT

San Luis Creek

Blanca WA Ponds-Cold A 41.8 2 RBT Blind Lake, Upper A 7.9 6 SRC, PPC Blue Lake A 4.9 6 SRC, PPC Cherry Lake A 9.9 6 SRC, PPC Como Lake A 6.9 6 NO INFO

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 49

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Miles Acres Barrier Other Salmonids San Luis Creek

Cotton Lake A 9.9 6 SRC, PPC Cottonwood Lake A 3 6 SRC, PPC Cottonwood Lake, South A 2 6 SRC, PPC Crater Lake A 9.9 6 SRC, PPC Crestone Lake, North A 31.6 5 NONE Crestone Lake, South A 8.9 0 SRC, PPC Deadman Lake, Lower (#1) A 2.5 6 SRC, PPC Deadman Lake, Upper (#2) A 13.8 6 SRC, PPC Deadman Lake, West A 3 6 SRC, PPC Little Bear Lake A 3 6 SRC, PPC Pioneer Lake A 6.9 6 SRC, PPC Rito Alto Lake A 4 6 SRC, PPC San Isabel Lake A 5.9 6 SRC, RBT, PPC Sand Creek Lake, Little A 12.6 6 PPC Sand Creek Lake, Lower A 62.8 6 PPC Sand Creek Lake, Upper A 42.8 6 PPC Teacup Lake A 19.8 6 SRC, PPC Willow Creek Lake, Lower A 19.8 6 SRC, PPC

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 50

Table 5. Summary Report: Status of Rio Grande Cutthroat Populations.

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Mi/Ac Adult Pop Barrier Other Salmonids Alamosa-Trinchera At Risk and Declining Alamosito Creek A 6.4 627 0 NONE Jim Creek A 6.1 1500 1 BKT Torsido Creek A 4.1 33 1 BKT Trinchera Creek #2 A- 6.3 1827 1 BNT, BKT, RBT Trinchera Creek, South Fork A 9.3 800 1 BKT Ute Creek A 12.6 983 0 BKT, RBT West Indian Creek A 6.4 1299 1 BKT

At Risk and Stable Deep Canyon A 3.3 429 1 BKT Grayback Creek A 3.5 2475 1 BKT Placer Creek A 5.2 2226 1 BKT Placer Creek, Middle Fork A 4.8 3379 1 BKT Placer Creek, South Fork A 4.7 3412 1 BKT Sangre De Cristo Creek A 17.0 3621 1 BKT Trinchera Creek, North Fork A 7.7 1324 1 BKT Vallejos Creek #2 A 3.0 960 0 BNT Vallejos Creek, North Fork A 7.0 1645 0 BNT Wagon Creek A 11.5 5796 1 BKT

Secure and Expanding Jaroso Creek A 5.8 4211 1 NONE Rough Canyon A 1.0 219 2 NONE Torcido Creek A- 5.9 6856 1 NONE

Secure and Stable Cat Creek A- 6.2 3224 1 NONE Cuates Creek A 4.6 1168 1 NONE Rhodes Gulch A 3.4 690 4 NONE San Francisco Creek A 9.0 4176 1 NONE San Francisco Creek, Middle Fork A 5.8 592 1 NONE Ute Creek, Little A 2.6 304 5 NONE Willow Creek A 8.0 208 1 NONE Unknown Cat Creek, North Fork A- 3.6 1 NONE Cat Creek, South Fork A- 4.0 1 NONE Culebra Creek, North Fork A- 11.0 462 0 BNT, BKT, RBT

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 51

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Mi/Ac Adult Pop Barrier Other Salmonids

Jim Creek, South Fork A 2.0 1 NO INFO San Francisco Lake, Upper West A 4.2 6 NONE Ute Lake, Little, Lower A 3 4 NONE Ute Lake, Little, Upper A 2 4 NONE West Indian Creek, North Fork A 3.0 1 BKT West Indian Creek, South Fork A 6.0 1 BKT

Canadian River Headwaters At Risk and Declining Ricardo Creek A 6.0 180 1 BKT

Unknown Fish Creek U 3.5 6 NO INFO Little Vermejo River U 6.0 6 NO INFO

Conejos River At Risk and Declining Conejos River, Lake Fork A 4.1 271 1 BNT, BTK

Secure and Expanding Cascade Creek A- 2.5 2875 4 NONE Osier Creek A 2.6 3838 1 NONE

Secure and Stable Rio De Los Pinos #2 A 1.6 242 5 NONE Unknown Big Lake A 11.9 1 BKT, BNT Canyon Verde B 4.0 5 RBT, YSC Rock Lake A 5 0 BKT, BNT Rio Chama Secure and Stable Nabor Creek A 2.3 2323 1 NONE Native Lake A 5 100 6 NONE Wolf Creek A 2.7 2381 1 NONE Rio Chama Unknown Rio Chamita B+ 4.0 424 0 BNT Sexto Creek B 3.5 0 BNT, RBT,CRC

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 52

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Mi/Ac Adult Pop Barrier Other Salmonids Rio Grande Headwaters At Risk and Declining Alder Creek, West B 8.2 1246 0 BKT Pass Creek B+ 9.1 801 0 BKT, RBT Rio Grande Headwaters At Risk and Stable Haypress Lake A 25.9 1000 0 BKT

Unknown Bellows Creek, West Fork C 7.3 0 BNT, BKT Pass Creek, West Fork A 1.0 236 0 BKT Saguache Creek At Risk and Declining Carnero Creek B 8.3 465 1 BNT Deep Creek U 5.2 165 0 BKT Prong Creek A 3.6 475 1 BKT Unknown Creek A 3.1 47 3 NONE Wannamaker Creek B+ 6.8 75 0 BKT Whale Creek B- 5.0 315 0 BKT At Risk and Stable Carnero Creek, North Fork A 8.4 2159 1 BNT Carnero Creek, South Fork B+ 13.8 26123 1 BKT Cave Creek A 6.1 397 1 BKT, BNT Jacks Creek A 8.9 1104 1 BKT Miners Creek A 4.3 933 5 BKT Tuttle Creek A 6.9 1546 1 BKT

Secure and Stable Carnero Creek, Middle Fork B+ 9.8 1215 1 NONE Cross Creek A 5.0 3310 1 NONE East Pass Creek A 7.7 1656 1 NONE Middle Creek, East A 3.2 646 5 NONE

San Luis Creek At Risk and Declining Medano Creek, Little A 5.5 154 5 NONE

Secure and Expanding Medano Creek A 13.0 24544 4 NONE

Secure and Stable Medano Creek, Hudson Branch A 3.0 1626 1 NONE

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 53

Sub-Basin Water Name Purity Mi/Ac Adult Pop Barrier Other Salmonids San Luis Creek Unknown Medano Lake A 2.7 6 NONE Upper Rio Grande Unknown Costilla Creek, East Fork A 2.3 1 NONE Costilla Creek, West Fork A 1.4 1 NONE Glacier Lake A 6.5 0 NONE

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 54

APPENDIX II

STATUS OF RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT POPULATIONS

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 55

Status of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Populations in 2002

Rio Grande cutthroat trout core conservation and conservation populations are present in all seven sub-basins in the Rio Grande basin and one in the Canadian River basin of Colorado. Within 162 RGCT waters, 76 are conservation or core conservation populations, three are of unknown status (Table 6). These populations provide the potential to maintain and enhance the genetic diversity of this subspecies. Recreation/genetic refugia populations are represented in 83 waters across six sub-basins (Table 6). These populations also provide recreational fishing opportunities for the public, and serve to increase the public awareness and appreciation of the value of this native trout.

Table 6. Summary of RGCT management classifications. Management Classification Core Conservation Recreation Unknown Sub-Basin # mi ac # mi ac # mi ac # mi ac Alamosa-Trinchera 36 201 9 7 23 1451 Canadian River Hdw 1 6 2 10 Conejos River 6 11 17 1 4 18 39 285 Rio Chama 3 5 5 2 8 2 11 Rio Grande Hdw 2 1 26 3 25 30 71 537 Saguache Creek 10 57 5 44 3 29 11 1 5 San Luis Creek 4 22 3 23 317 Upper Rio Grande 3 4 7 Total 65 307 67 11 81 0 83 173 2621 3 15 0 Percent 40 53 2 7 14 0 51 30 98 2 3 0

Currently, there are 36 core conservation populations and 4 conservation populations with a biomass > 20 lb/ac (22 kg/ha); and 36 core conservation populations and 4 conservation populations with a population size > 500 adult fish. Within the core conservation and conservation populations, 39 are determined to be stable; 22 are considered to be both stable and secure or expanding and 17 are stable and at risk (Table 7). These risk factors are most often attributed to nonnative salmonid or habitat issues that are being addressed through specified conservation actions in the implementation plan. Another 18 populations are determined to be at risk and declining and are not in a desirable condition, but have demonstrated a previous capability to support more robust populations. Twenty-two additional populations are of unknown status due to insufficient data.

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 56

Table 7. Status summary for core conservation and conservation populations. Population Status ARD ARS SS SE Unknown

Sub-Basin # mi ac # mi ac # mi ac # mi ac # mi ac Alamosa-Trinchera 7 51 1068 7 40 313 9 309 Canadian River Hdw 1 6 2 10 Conejos River 1 4 1 2 0 2 5 3 4 17 Rio Chama 3 5 5 2 8 Rio Grande Hdw 2 17 1 26 2 8 Saguache Creek 6 32 6 48 4 26 San Luis Creek 1 6 1 3 1 13 1 3 Upper Rio Grande 3 4 7 Total 18 116 0 17 116 26 16 76 5 6 31 0 22 64 36 Percent 23 28 0 22 29 39 20 19 7 8 8 0 28 16 54 ARD= At Risk and Declining; ARS= At Risk and Stable; SS= Secure and Stable; SE= Secure and Expanding As the problems of nonnative fish, habitat degradation, and lack of data are addressed, populations can be added to the secure, stable and expanding categories from the pool of 57 “at risk” and “unknown” populations. Management techniques for restoring self-sustaining populations of native cutthroat have already been proven with the experience gained in their conservation since the 1970s.

Figure 1. Rio Grande cutthroat trout population types.

Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Population Types 2%

40% Core Conservation 51% Recreation Unkno wn

7%

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 57

Distribution of Core Populations

5% 6%

Alamosa-Trinchera Canadian River Hdw 15% Conejos River Rio Chama Rio Grande Hdw 3% 55% Saguache Creek San Luis Creek 5% Upper Rio Grande

9% 2%

Figure 2. Distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout core populations.

Figure 3. Distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation populations.

Distribution of Conservation Populations

9%

18% Conejos River 46% Rio Chama Rio Grande Hdw Saguache Creek

27%

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 58

Figure 4. Distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout recreation populations.

Distribution of Recreation Populations

8%

28% Alamosa-Trinchera 22% Conejos River Rio Chama Rio Grande Hdw Saguache Creek San Luis Creek 4% 2%

36%

Figure 5. Status of core and conservation populations.

Status of Core and Conservation Populations

23% 27%

At Risk and Declining At Risk and Stable Secure and Stable Secure and Expanding Unknown 8% 22%

20%

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 59

APPENDIX III

RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT DISTRIBUTION MAPS

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 60

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 61

Conservation Waters: Streams Key- ID Water Name Water code 1 Alder Creek, West 47755 2 Bellows Creek, West Fork 38376 3 Canyon Verde 38756 4 Carnero Creek 38770 5 Carnero Creek, Middle Fork 38782 6 Carnero Creek, South Fork 38807 7 Pass Creek 42010 8 Rio Chamita 43864 9 Sexto Creek 43965 10 Wannamaker Creek 43935 11 Whale Creek 42420

Core Waters: Streams

Key- ID Water Name Water Code 1 Alamosito Creek 38248 2 Carnero Creek, North Fork 38794 3 Cascade Creek 40147 4 Cat Creek 44242 5 Cat Creek, North Fork 49418 6 Cat Creek, South Fork 49420 7 Cave Creek 38871 8 Conejos River, Lake Fork 39289 9 Costilla Creek, East Fork 39390 10 Costilla Creek, West Fork 33890 11 Cross Creek 38581 12 Cuates Creek 38141 13 Culebra Creek, North Fork 39493 14 Deep Canyon 38350 15 East Pass Creek 42022 16 Grayback Creek 38459 17 Jacks Creek 38579 18 Jaroso Creek 48066 19 Jim Creek 44254 20 Jim Creek, South Fork 43408 21 Medano Creek 41501 22 Medano Creek, Hudson Branch 39590 23 Medano Creek, Little 48143 24 Middle Creek, East 41587 25 Miners Creek 44432 26 Nabor Creek 43648 27 Osier Creek 44444 28 Pass Creek, West Fork 47440 29 Placer Creek 44711 30 Placer Creek, Middle Fork 49305 31 Placer Creek, South Fork 49292 32 Prong Creek 38271 33 Rhodes Gulch 43840

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 62

Core Waters: Streams Key- ID Water Name Water Code 34 Ricardo Creek 30635 35 Rio De Los Pinos #2 42189 36 Rough Canyon 39691 37 San Francisco Creek 42870 38 San Francisco Creek, Middle Fork 44850 39 Sangre De Cristo Creek 42882 40 Torcido Creek 38137 41 Torsido Creek 43668 42 Trinchera Creek #2 43719 43 Trinchera Creek, North Fork 48670 44 Trinchera Creek, South Fork 48682 45 Tuttle Creek 45890 46 Unknown Creek 48042 47 Ute Creek 37951 48 Ute Creek, Little 49379 49 Vallejos Creek #2 38143 50 Vallejos Creek, North Fork 48078 51 Wagon Creek 44456 52 West Indian Creek 44709 53 West Indian Creek, North Fork 39528 54 West Indian Creek, South Fork 39530 55 Willow Creek 39831 56 Wolf Creek 42343

Core Waters: Lakes Key- ID Water Name Water Code 57 Big Lake 88585 58 Glacier Lake 88291 59 Haypress Lake 90388 60 Medano Lake 93512 61 Native Lake 97661 62 Rock Lake 96417 63 San Francisco Lake, Upper West 93283 64 Ute Lake, Little Lower 97659 65 Ute Lake, Little Upper 97647

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 63

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 64

Recreation Waters: Streams Key- ID Water Name Water Code 1 Archuleta Creek 38059 2 Adams Fork Conejos River 39277 3 Conejos River, Middle Fork 39291 4 Conejos River, North Fork 48416 5 Conejos River, South Fork 39304 6 Hanson Creek 40561 7 Hot Creek 40725 8 Lost Trail Creek 41309 9 Trail Creek, West Lost 41311 10 Pole Creek 42197 11 Prospect Creek 46967 12 Rio Chama, West Fork 38972 13 Rio Grande #5 42553 14 Middle Saguache Creek 42806 15 South Fork Saguache Creek 42818 16 Squaw Creek 43365 17 Treasure Creek 49127 18 Ute Creek 43834 19 Ute Creek, East 43846 20 Ute Creek, Middle 43858 21 Ute Creek, West 43860 22 Weminuche Creek 43985

Recreation Waters: Lakes Key- ID Water Name Water Code 23 Alberta Park Reservoir 88321 24 Ann Lake 88383 25 Bear Lake 88484 26 Beaver Lake 88496 27 Black Mountain Lake 88624 28 Blanca WA Ponds-Cold 88636 29 Blind Lake, Upper 88662 30 Blue Lake 88674 31 Blue Lake 88698 32 Brown Lake, Upper 88802 33 Cherry Lake 88989 34 Cliff Lake 93738 35 Como Lake 94413 36 Cotton Lake 89183 37 Cottonwood Lake 89195 38 Cottonwood Lake, South 94033 39 Crater Lake 89246 40 Crestone Lake, North 89296 41 Crestone Lake, South 89309 42 Crystal Lake 89335 43 Deadman Lake, Lower (#1) 89397 44 Deadman Lake, Upper (#2) 89400

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 65

Recreation Waters: Lakes Key- ID Water Name Water Code 45 Deadman Lake, West 89412 46 Glacier Lake 90061 47 Goose Lake 90112 48 Green Lake 90251 49 Heart Lake 90415 50 Kerr Lake 90794 51 La Jara Reservoir 90833 52 Little Bear Lake 94019 53 Lost Lake 93942 54 Machin Lake 91114 55 Pioneer Lake 94021 56 Poage Lake 91760 57 Red Lake 91924 58 Rito Alto Lake 91986 59 Rito Hondo Lake 91998 60 Rock Lake 92039 61 Ruby Lake, Big 92089 62 Ruby Lake, Little 92091 63 San Isabel Lake 92154 64 Sand Creek Lake, Little 81175 65 Sand Creek Lake, Lower 81151 66 Creek Lake, Upper Sand 81163 67 Shaw Lake 92217 68 Spruce Lake, Lower 93651 69 Spruce Lake, Upper 93649 70 Teacup Lake 92522 71 Timber Lake 92609 72 Tobacco Lake 92611 73 Trail Lake 92661 74 Trout Lake 92700 75 Trujillo Meadows Reservoir 92724 76 Twin Lake, Upper (W) 92750 77 Ute Lake, Lower Twin (#2) 92837 78 Ute Lake, Main (E) 92813 79 Ute Lake, Middle 92825 80 Ute Lake, Upper Twin (#1) 92849 81 Ute Lake, Upper West 92863 82 Ute Lake, West 92851 83 Lower Willow Creek Lake 93093

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 66

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 67

At Risk and Declining Waters

Key- ID Water Name Water Code Status 1 Alamosito Creek 38248 At Risk and Declining 2 Alder Creek, West 47755 At Risk and Declining 3 Carnero Creek 38770 At Risk and Declining 4 Conejos River, Lake Fork 39289 At Risk and Declining 5 Jim Creek 44254 At Risk and Declining 6 Medano Creek, Little 48143 At Risk and Declining 7 Pass Creek 42010 At Risk and Declining 8 Prong Creek 38271 At Risk and Declining 9 Ricardo Creek 30635 At Risk and Declining 10 Torsido Creek 43668 At Risk and Declining 11 Trinchera Creek #2 43719 At Risk and Declining 12 Trinchera Creek, South Fork 48682 At Risk and Declining 13 Unknown Creek 48042 At Risk and Declining 14 Ute Creek 37951 At Risk and Declining 15 Wannamaker Creek 43935 At Risk and Declining 16 West Indian Creek 44709 At Risk and Declining 17 Whale Creek 42420 At Risk and Declining

At Risk and Stable Waters: Streams Key- ID Water Name Water Code Status 18 Carnero Creek, North Fork 38794 At Risk and Stable 19 Carnero Creek, South Fork 38807 At Risk and Stable 20 Cave Creek 38871 At Risk and Stable 21 Deep Canyon 38350 At Risk and Stable 22 Grayback Creek 38459 At Risk and Stable 23 Jacks Creek 38579 At Risk and Stable 24 Miners Creek 44432 At Risk and Stable 25 Placer Creek 44711 At Risk and Stable 26 Placer Creek, Middle Fork 49305 At Risk and Stable 27 Placer Creek, South Fork 49292 At Risk and Stable 28 Sangre De Cristo Creek 42882 At Risk and Stable 29 Trinchera Creek, North Fork 48670 At Risk and Stable 30 Tuttle Creek 45890 At Risk and Stable 31 Vallejos Creek #2 38143 At Risk and Stable 32 Vallejos Creek, North Fork 48078 At Risk and Stable 33 Wagon Creek 44456 At Risk and Stable

At Risk and Stable Waters: Lakes Key- ID Water Name Water Code Status 34 Haypress Lake 90388 At Risk and Stable

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 68

Secure and Expanding Waters Key- ID Water Name Water Code Status 35 Cascade Creek 40147 Secure and Expanding 36 Jaroso Creek 48066 Secure and Expanding 37 Medano Creek 41501 Secure and Expanding 38 Osier Creek 44444 Secure and Expanding 39 Rough Canyon 39691 Secure and Expanding 40 Torcido Creek 38137 Secure and Expanding

Secure and Stable Waters: Streams Key- ID Water Name Water Code Status 41 Carnero Creek, Middle Fork 38782 Secure and Stable 42 Cat Creek 44242 Secure and Stable 43 Cross Creek 38581 Secure and Stable 44 Cuates Creek 38141 Secure and Stable 45 Medano Creek, Hudson Branch 39590 Secure and Stable 46 Middle Creek, East 41587 Secure and Stable 47 Nabor Creek 43648 Secure and Stable 48 Pass Creek, East 42022 Secure and Stable 49 Rhodes Gulch 43840 Secure and Stable 50 Rio De Los Pinos #2 42189 Secure and Stable 51 San Francisco Creek 42870 Secure and Stable 52 San Francisco Creek, Middle Fork 44850 Secure and Stable 53 Ute Creek, Little 49379 Secure and Stable 54 Willow Creek 39831 Secure and Stable 55 Wolf Creek 42343 Secure and Stable

Secure and Stable Waters: Lakes

Key- ID Water Name Water Code Status 56 Native Lake 97661 Secure and Stable

Unknown Waters: Streams Key- ID Water Name Water Code Status 57 Bellows Creek, West Fork 38376 Unknown 58 Canyon Verde 38756 Unknown 59 Cat Creek, North Fork 49418 Unknown 60 Cat Creek, South Fork 49420 Unknown 61 Costilla Creek, East Fork 39390 Unknown 62 Costilla Creek, West Fork 33890 Unknown 63 Culebra Creek, North Fork 39493 Unknown 64 Jim Creek, South Fork 43408 Unknown 65 Pass Creek, West Fork 47440 Unknown 66 Rio Chamita 43864 Unknown 67 Sexto Creek 43965 Unknown 68 West Indian Creek, North Fork 39528 Unknown 69 West Indian Creek, South Fork 39530 Unknown

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 69

Unknown Waters: Lakes Key- ID Water Name Water Code Status 70 Big Lake 88585 Unknown 71 Glacier Lake 88291 Unknown 72 Medano Lake 93512 Unknown 73 Rock Lake 96417 Unknown 74 San Francisco Lake, Upper West 93283 Unknown 75 Ute Lake, Little Lower 97659 Unknown 76 Ute Lake, Little Upper 97647 Unknown

RGCT Conservation Plan Page 70